Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords.]

Ordered, That, in the case of the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords,] Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 1.
asked the Pensions Minister whether Staff-sergeant A. Hutchinson, No. 7615, Royal Field Artillery, Certificate No. S.E.R. 16,025, is a married man and therefore entitled as a result of his disability to a pension of 38s. 2d.; whether he has received his ring papers fixing his pension at 30s. per week from 4th September; whether the arrears due to him from that date should be 13s. instead of 4s. 10d. per week; and, if not entitled to the higher pension, will he state why?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington - Evans): Staff-sergeant Hutchinson has a pensionable dis-
ability of 60 per cent. His rank on discharge was "Fitter Staff-sergeant" which counts for pension as "N.C.O. Class II." As such he is entitled under the new Warrant, to a pension of 30s. a week, with 6s. a week for wife's allowance. An award at this rate has now been made and arrears issued.

CLAIMS FOR PENSIONS (MEDICAL REPORTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 5.
asked the Pensions Minister if, in the Middlesbrough district, the doctors are refusing to issue the two medical reports prescribed by Circular 143 in connection with claims for pensions under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant unless they receive from the discharged soldier a fee of 5s. for each of the two certificates required by every applicant; and, as in many cases discharged soldiers are not able to pay the 10s. demanded, can he authorise the local pensions committee to pay these medical fees, if necessary?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant, a demobilised or discharged soldier is entitled to claim a pension at any time after leaving the Service if he can show that he is suffering from a. disability due to or aggravated by service, notwithstanding that he made no claim on demobilisation or discharge and appeared then to be in perfect health. In such circumstances, it must clearly rest upon the man to substantiate his claim, and the Ministry cannot reasonably be asked to defray the expense of obtaining the necessary evidence. I am, however, revising the procedure for claims under Article 9, and I hope to reduce the amount of primary evidence required.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MILITARY FORCES.

Captain, WEDGWOOD BENN: 7.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the total number of officers and men of the Royal Air Force at present in Ireland?

Mr. DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer is that on the 30th November last there were stationed in Ireland fifty-seven officers of the Royal Air Force and 563 airmen.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).

Mr. MOLES: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in a position to make a definite statement concerning the revision in the scale of pensions for ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a similar question asked yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson).

Mr. MOLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to circulate the award if it is given during the Recess?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Most certainly.

CHRISTMAS FAIR, DUBLIN.

Captain W. BENN: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the annual Christmas fair or sale of Irish goods to have been opened at the Mansion House, Dublin, on 11th December, was prohibited and suppressed by order of the police; whether, although this fair had been advertised for a month, notice of suppression was served on the Lord Mayor only a few hours before the hour of opening; and whether any compensation will be paid to exhibitors for losses incurred in erecting stalls and transporting goods?

Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply given to his previous question on this subject on Monday last. The fair was, I believe, advertised for a couple of weeks prior to the opening on the 11th instant. It was not clear until the day of opening that the project was organised by an illegal body. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ADVANCES AGAINST CARGOES (CLAIMS FOR RECOVERY).

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action the Foreign Office intend to take to recover the amounts due to British subjects in Basra and Bagdad for advances made by British merchants to native merchants prior to the outbreak of war for goods to be consigned to London,
where the goods were actually shipped consigned to London on a British ship in payment of such advances, and the goods were seized on arrival in London and confiscated, and the proceeds taken by the Government, the only losers through the action of the Government being British merchants resident in London; and will the Government take immediate steps to recover the advances on behalf of the British merchants from the Turkish merchants?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. C. Harms-worth): All claims received by the Foreign Office in respect of advances against cargoes in such cases have been duly referred to the Prize Claims Committee. It is understood that certain payments have already been made to the firms concerned, and the Committee will no doubt recommend that the claimants shall receive relief in all proper cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAUCASIAN AND BALTIC STATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the present Government a Georgia, Caucasus, has been recognised  de facto; and, if not, whether he will state the reason for the different treatment of Georgia to that of Esthonia and Latvia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Neither in the Baltic nor in the Caucasian States has the de jure recognition of their independence been made by the Allied Powers. The degree to which the de facto Governments have been recognised differs according to the degree of political development to which they have attained. On the whole, this has been less in the Caucasian than in the Baltic States, and this accounts for any difference in their treatment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that in the Republic of Georgia there is a popularly-elected Constituent Assembly and a Government that functions, and why has not this Government been recognised de facto and the ordinary courtesy extended to their representatives here and in Paris?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend knows that these are matters of great difficulty. I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

WOODEN HOUSES.

Mr. DOYLE: 15.
asked the Minister of Health if he has satisfied himself as to the suitability from sanitary and other points of view of the erection of wooden houses in crowded areas; whether he proposes that the Grants shall be given to those erecting such buildings; and how many wooden huts and houses are now being used to accommodate families?

Mr. GILBERT: 17.
asked the Minister of Health what action has been taken to secure the use by local authorities of State-owned hostels and Army huts for temporary housing, pending the erection of permanent houses; and whether he can state the number of local authorities who have made applications therefor and the amount of accommodation made available?

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH (Dr. Addison): Grants to the amount of two-thirds of the ordinary grants for building houses will be payable in respect of wooden houses of satisfactory construction. It is not intended that such houses should be erected in crowded districts. Up to the 13th December, eighty-eight local authorities had made application for temporary accommodation by the use of Army huts or State-owned hostels; 1,621 huts have been acquired by local authorities for purposes of conversion, and 631 others have been offered to local authorities. These huts will provide. accommodation for 3,217 families. In addition twenty-nine hostels, providing accommodation for 534 families, have been taken over by local authorities.

Captain TERRELL: Are there any wooden houses at present under construction in the country, and, if so, how many?

Dr. ADDISON: There are some, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice, I will give him an answer.

COUNCIL SCHEME, POPLAR.

Sir ALFRED YEO: 18.
asked the Minister of Health whether any schemes for the provision of working-class houses or the restoration of those demolished by air raids have been put forward by the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Poplar; if so, what progress has been made towards carrying out the schemes and when such schemes were submitted?

Dr. ADDISON: The late Borough Council have submitted four schemes for the erection of houses. Three of these schemes involve the use of small sites which have been partly developed; two of these sites have been approved, and the plans for the houses have been prepared. The fourth scheme is one fur the building of some 116 houses; the site and plans of the lay-out and houses have been approved, and I undertsand that work on the site has already begun.

TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES (CROWN LANDS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 23.
asked the Minister of Health if it is the intention of his Department to exclude from the town-planning schemes Crown and War Department lands; and will he state the reason?

Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that at present I have no authority to approve the inclusion of Crown lands in town-planning schemes.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it will cause a great deal of trouble and annoyance to-local authorities if they cannot have these lands for their town-planning schemes?

Dr. ADDISON: It will apply only to a very small number of cases, and I have no statutory authority in the matter, as I have stated in my reply.

DURHAM AGED MINERS' ASSOCIATION.

Mr. SWAN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether, as it is the intention of the Durham Aged Miners' Homes Association to build at least 300 aged mine-workers' homes of two rooms and a scullery, the Government will grant to this movement a similar subsidy to that proposed to be granted to local authorities?

Dr. ADDISON: I would refer the hon. Member to page four of Command Paper 453. It is not proposed that a subsidy should be paid in respect of cottages containing less accommodation than a living room and two bedrooms.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACTS (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 16.
asked the Minister of Health whether there are any fixed dates on which panel doctors should receive payment for work done under the
Health Insurance Acts; whether he is aware that in Lancashire payment has not yet been Made in full for services rendered in 1918; when such arrears will be paid; and whether arrangements will be made so that the doctors will not in future have to wait twelve months for money due to them?

Dr. ADDISON: The existing arrangements necessitate the calculation of. the number of insured persons in each area during the period to which each payment relates, and necessarily involve delay in making a final settlement, although substantial instalments are paid as promptly as possible. I am informed that there has been certain unavoidable delay in effecting a settlement in Lancashire for 1918, but payment of the final balances has now been made in all cases except in the few instances where statements from the doctors have not yet been received. A new basis of payment, which has been accepted by insurance practitioners, will come into operation for 1920, and will enable settlements to be effected quarterly.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that the Insurance Act has not improved the health of the nation, lie intends to introduce an alternative medical service?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not of opinion that the statement made in the first part of the question by the hon. Member is correct, and I do not, therefore, find it necessary to consider the suggestion in the second part.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether the majority of panel practitioners regard service under the National Health Insurance Acts as degrading, but are, under the present economic conditions, compelled to take service under that Act?

Dr. ADDISON: No, Sir; I have every reason to believe that the suggestions in both parts of the question are without foundation.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPHTHERIA AND SCARLET FEVER CASES, LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increase of diphtheria and scarlet fever cases in London; whether he is aware that there is a shortage of beds
for the patients; whether he has taken any action thereon; and can he make a statement on the subject?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir; and I have for some time been taking steps to get back certain London institutions on the fever establishment of the Metropolitan Asylums Board which had been lent on account of war exigencies to the military authorities. It is mainly that occupation, and the other factors named in my reply on the same subject to the lion. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy) on 18th November, which have occasioned such pressure for civilian needs as has been felt in the last few weeks. The dimensions of the present scarlet fever epidemic are smaller, and the maximum figure is a little later in the season than in the two previous epidemics for 1907 and 1914. I am glad to say that the number of scarlet fever cases notified last week (7th to 13th December) in London show a substantial decline; and the figures for diphtheria appear to indicate that the maximum for that disease has also been passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (PENSIONS).

Mr. CAIRNS: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to revise the police retiring pensions with a view of equalising the value of their purchasing power as between pensions given now and pensions given before 1st April, 1919; and is he aware that many police pensioners are old and broken in health and cannot do any work?

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are many police pensioners in this country who retired before April, 1919, who are receiving allowances quite incommensurate with the present cost of living; and whether the Government will make early provision to increase these pension allowances to the scale now paid to police pensioners who retired after April, 1919, which is over double the old scale?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): The matter has constantly been under consideration, but my right hon. Friend regrets he does not see his way to propose legislation in the sense suggested.

Mr. CAIRNS: What were the pensions before the War?

Major BAIRD: The amount varies, of course. I cannot give the figures now.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: When is the Second Report of Lord Desborough's Committee on this likely to be published?

Major BAIRD: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE COURTS (CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS).

Sir WILLIAM BULL: 30.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of following the precedent set on Peace Day and give an order to close all the Police Courts on Bank Holiday and Saturday, 27th December, having regard to the small amount of crime that now occurs at Christmas?

Major BAIRD: There is no power to close the Courts on 26th December, and, after consulting the chief magistrate, my right hon. Friend does not think it desirable to close them on the 27th.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (EDWARD GOOD).

Captain R. TERRELL: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the political activities of Edward Good, of Cameo Corner, 1, New Oxford Street; whether he is the same man as Moysheh Oyved Gudak; whether his writings have been brought to the notice of the Home Office, and whether they are aware of their tendencies; and what action, if any, they propose to take in the matter?

Major BAIRD: My right hon. Friend is aware of this man and of the general trend of his writings. He is advised that it is not necessary to take any action.

Captain TERRELL: By whom is the right hon. Gentleman advised?

Major BAIRD: The authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (AIR RAID INJURIES).

Mr. GILBERT: 33.
asked the Home Secretary what were the grounds for con-
sidering that Police Constable William Jellis, who was invalided out of the Metropolitan Police Force in 1918 as a result of injuries received from a bomb dropped by enemy aircraft, was regarded as being off duty at the time of the explosion, having regard to the fact that he was on reserve duty until the air raid was over?

Major BAIRD: This case was carefully investigated by a board who reported that the constable was at home off duty when the explosion occurred, that he had not been called up for duty owing to the condition of his own and his wife's health, and that no person received personal injury from the explosion in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND.

GOLD EXPORTS.

Sir J. D. REES: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whence the gold to the value of £331,632 exported from Nyasaland between 1892 and 1918, as stated in the Annual Report for 1917–18, was obtained; and whether it was exported?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The figures given in the Report are of the imports and exports of specie through the Customs. Gold finds it way into Nyasaland in small sums in the possession of individuals, principally natives. returning from employment outside the Protectorate, and in consequence is not declared at any Customs station. This gold, being in excess of the normal amount required in the country, accumulates at time banks, by which it is exported to the United Kingdom and elsewhere in payment of their liabilities or for investment.

COLONIAL REPORTS (MAPS).

Sir J. D. REES: 35.
asked when a map of the Nyasaland Protectorate of later date than that of 1912–13 will be appended to the Annual Report?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: For purposes of economy, the practice of appending maps to the Colonial Annual Reports has been suspended except in the case of Colonies which print their own Annual Reports, and supply them to the Colonial Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPEN SPACES (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).

Mr. LANE-FOX: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works for what purpose the temporary buildings in Eaton Square are being used; and whether it will be possible to remove them in time for the replanting of the gardens for the coming summer?

Mr. J. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): This question should have been addressed to the War Office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has asked me to give his answer, which is as follows: The hut to which my hon. Friend refers is the Queen Mary's Officers' Club, with bed accommodation for 143 officers. It belongs to the Young Men's Christian Association, and has been placed at the disposal of the War Department for officers passing through London, who would in present conditions be unable to find other accommodation. One hundred and sixty officers on an average are accommodated in the hut every night. The question when the hut will be moved depends on negotiations which I understand are at present proceeding between the Young Men's Christian Association and the Eaton Square Gardens (North Side) Householders' Committee. As far as the War Department is concerned, there is still great need for the hut, and this need will probably continue for another six months. The Department is grateful to the householders for the public spirit they have shown in allowing the hut to be placed in the square, and I trust they will continue to show the same public spirit by agreeing to its remaining as long as there is real need.

Major BARNETT: 37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what progress is being made in restoring the Regent's Park to its former uses; whether the unsightly wooden buildings erected during the War for the Army Post Office are now being vacated by the military and taken over by the Ministry of Pensions as offices for their clerks; and, if so, whether it is intended that the land so occupied shall be permanently alienated from the use and enjoyment of the public?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I regret that, owing to the great lack of other accommodation, it has not been possible as yet to remove any of the existing temporary
buildings in Regent's Park, but such removal shall be made as soon as alternative accommodation becomes available. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. There is, of course, no intention of alienating the land permanently from the use and enjoyment of the public.

Major BARNETT: Can my right hon. Friend give any date when the long-suffering residents in that district are likely to be relieved?

Sir A. MOND: I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. HOPKINS: What are the buildings used for?

Sir A. MOND: They have been put up for the Ministry of Pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYMEN (WAGES STANDARDISATION).

Mr. FORREST: 38.
asked the Minister Transport whether, in view of the slow progress of the negotiations with the railway-men on the subject of the standardisation of wages, he can now inform the House what are the two points of view; and whether, in any case, he will take steps to avoid a sudden strike being declared without due and adequate warning to the community as a whole?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): I understand that the Prime Minister is dealing with this subject in the answers he proposes to give to-day to. the hon. Members for Stratford and North Lambeth.

Mr. LYLE: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a full statement to-the House regarding the negotiations between the Government and the railway-men?

Mr. BRIANT: 83.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement as to the negotiations between the Government and the National Union of Railwaymen with regard to standardisation of wages?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The negotiations are proceeding in a friendly spirit, and I have every hope that a satisfactory conclusion will soon be
reached. The hon. Member will understand that it is undesirable in the meantime to make a statement upon so complicated a negotiation.

RAILWAY WAITING ROOMS.

Mr. CAIRNS: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that there are no fires lit at ordinary stations and seldom any fires at junction stations on the North-Eastern Railway; and will he make inquiries by his Department to see this idea carried out daring the winter months?

Mr. NEAL: I do not think I can add to the information given to the hon. Gentleman in a letter on this subject sent to him on the 11th December, and in the reply given to him in this House on the 8th December.

Mr. CAIRNS: Have orders been given to see that it is carried out?

Mr. NEAL: The Minister of Transport has desired the railway companies to put fires in waiting rooms at all junctions where there is a possibility of passengers having long to wait.

TRIBUNAL OF REFERENCE.

Mr. SUGDEN: 105.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to accept representatives from distributive traders upon the Tribunal of Reference, which at present includes representatives of manufacturing, mercantile, co-operative, and trade union interests, bearing in mind that these distributive traders are the nearest and most direct link between himself and the public?

Mr. NEAL: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to similar questions on Monday last put by the hon. Member for Pontefract and the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley.

FARM PRODUCE (MOTOR LORRIES).

Captain TERRELL: 107.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the congestion in respect of farmers' produce at stations on the Great Western Railway; and whether he will consider the employment of the lorries at Cippenham?

Mr. NEAL: I have received no serious complaints of lack of facilities for farmers' produce at stations on the Great Western Railway. I am unable to entertain the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Captain TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of motor lorries in working order at present lying idle at Cippenham, and will he consider utilising these vehicles to assist the railways?

Mr. NEAL: The use of motor lorries to assist the railways has been tried; and may I remind the hon. Member of the statement made by the Minister a few days ago that it has not proved successful.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is that opinion accepted by the majority of the users?

RAILWAY WAGONS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 110.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the well-equipped factories of the Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon, and Finance Company and other factories adapted for the production of railway wagons are partially idle, with the result that many of the employés are working short time and many skilled men are wholly unemployed; whether, in view of the urgent need of railway wagons, lie will take immediate steps to place orders with these factories; and whether he is prepared to receive a deputation from the workmen concerned order to discuss the situation?

Mr. NEAL: I must refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on the 10th. As he then stated, the question of placing orders with private builders must depend largely on their willingness to quote reasonable prices for early delivery, and I have put the Metropolitan Carriage Company into communication with several railway companies with a view to negotiating the placing of orders. If they desire it, I should be prepared to see a deputation from the workmen.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether private companies have quoted unreasonable prices for those wagons?

Mr. NEAL: The Minister is in negotiation with a view to that question being fully investigated by an independent accountant to be agreed upon.

Mr. LAMBERT: Considering the urgency of the question, will that inquiry take place at once?

Mr. NEAL: It is desired that it Shall do so immediately.

Mr. HOUSTON: In view of the great congestion and disorganisation throughout the country, is not an immediate supply of wagons more important than the price?

Mr. NEAL: An immediate supply of wagons is of great importance, but I am sure my hon. Friend will not deny the vary great importance also of securing that there is no undue tax upon the public purse.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would it not have been desirable that investigations should have been made by the Minister before making the allegations which were made to the meeting last week?

Mr. HURD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wagon builders have offered to do this work at 5 per cent. profit?

Mr. NEAL: I am not.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 111.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the number of railway wagons on order; whether he is aware that many factories well adapted for the production of wagons are short of work; and whether he will place further orders and thus provide employment for many skilled workmen at present out of work and at the same time help to meet the transport needs of the country?

Mr. NEAL: The number of wagons on order was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in his recent statement. It is 22,000. In reply to the last part of the question, I must refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Wednesbury to-day.

Mr. DAVISON: How many wagons are required by the Government and by the country generally?

Mr. NEAL: I would like notice of that question.

Mr. HURD: 112.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, in view of the wagon shortage, he will suggest to goods managers at stations in agricultural districts that they should keep a list of farmers who intimate that they have wagon loads waiting for transit, so that when trucks are available postcards may be sent to these farmers in order of priority, and thus avoid the waste
of time and money involved in sending in their loads to the station only to find no trucks available?

Mr. NEAL: I am informed that the procedure suggested by the hon. Member is that which is being followed as far as is practicable. The hon. Member has been good enough to supply me with information on a specific case and I am causing inquiries to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA.

BRITISH CREDITORS.

Mr. MANVILLE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the feeling of resentment amongst many of the manufacturers and traders of this country trading previously to the War with Austria that provision was not made in the Peace Treaty with that country for securing payment at pre-war rates of the balance of debts due from Austrian debtors to British creditors; is he aware that in setting off German property in this country and debts owing by this country to German creditors against British property in Germany, and debts owing by British debtors to German creditors, there is a suitable surplus which, if applied to the settlement of the Austrian deficiency, would be, to a large measure, sufficient for the purpose of satisfying these claims; will he say why, since these countries fought as one against this country, they have not been treated as one in the settlement of debts; and will he say if there is any way of meeting the inequitable position which apparently at present exists?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to answers given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 27th October and 20th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, and on 24th November to my hon. Friend. With regard to the last part of the question, while the solidarity of Germany and Austria in the War justifies the provision in the Treaty by which German property is made available for certain claims in respect of war action taken by the Austrian Government, it was not felt at the time that the Treaties were made that it would be equitable to compel individual Germans to pay pre-war debts of individual Austrians.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he has any information as to what are the present rations of bread, flour, vegetables, and coal per week per head in Vienna; what is the present death-rate among children in the same town; and whether all food supplies now in transit to or in Austria will come to an end on 21st January next?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the answer is long and detailed, I propose, with my Noble Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Answer referred to:

As regards the first two parts of the question the latest information which we have is as follows:

Rations in Vienna.

The bread ration in Vienna per head per week for ordinary workers is 1,170 grammes of flour, including 250 grammes for cooking. For hard workers 1,686 grammes of flour and 250 for cooking. It has been impossible for the Food Controller to guarantee these quantities. The normal ration in Vienna is 1,150 grammes of flour and 500 grammes for cooking. The normal ration for hard workers is 2,045 grammes of flour and 500 grammes for cooking.

Coal.

Seven kilos per household per week for domestic and cooking purposes as opposed to 25 kilos for domestic purposes and 20 for cooking under normal rations. The existing ration cannot be provided with any regularity.

Vegetables.

Are not rationed, only beets and turnips can be had.

Meat.

The present meat ration is 100 grammes per head per week.

Fats.

The ration of fats is 120 grammes.

Milk.

One tin of condensed milk per week supplied only to children under seven years old. Half to one litre per day fresh milk supplied only to children under one year.

Sugar.

Three-quarters kilo per month in towns, and half kilo per month in the country.

Mortality among Children.

No figures are available as to the present death-rate among children in Vienna. During 1918, 19,000 children were born in Vienna and 51,000 children died.

As regards the last part of the question, I understand that the position is substantially as stated. Every effort is being made to arrange for the supply of Austria after 21st January.

Viscount CURZON: Is the position described in the last part of the question correct?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather have the whole answer circulated. It is a very long and detailed one, giving figures.

TREATY OF PEACE.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 85.
asked when the Treaty of Peace with Austria will be ratified?

The PRIME MINISTER: Every endeavour is being made to expedite ratification, but I cannot yet give any answer as to the date.

Oral Answers to Questions — SS. "RIVER CLYDE."

Major Earl WINTERTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if the "River Clyde" steamship can be brought home from Cape Helles, Gallipoli, and moored permanently in the Thames?

The PRIME MINISTER: The vessel is lying at Malta very badly damaged, and the Ministry of Shipping have decided that they would not be justified in incurring the expense involved in bringing the vessel to the -United Kingdom and repairing her. Arrangements are, therefore, being made to sell her as she lies.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right lion. Gentleman give any approximation of the expense? Is he aware of the great sentiment among both naval and military men who were in the Dardanelles in regard to this vessel, and, in view of that, cannot the decision he reconsidered?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no doubt great sentiment in favour of bringing this vessel back; if it could be done at anything like reasonable figures we should do it. Let me give an illustration. It would mean £20,000 for towing the vessel alone, but in addition she is so very badly damaged that I am told the cost of repair-
ing her would be enormous, and could not be justified in the present condition of public funds.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be possible to preserve her at Malta as a great national relic? There would be no additional expense in keeping her there.

The PRIME MINISTER: That may be worth considering. I quite realise the great sentiment that centres round this vessel, and I will further consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR EAST (RAILWAY CONTROL).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether France has now control of the railways from Salonika to Constantinople, and from Damascus to Taurus; and whether French interests and influence in Turkey are still subject to the approval of the Allied Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: In. reply to the first part of the question, the position. is I understand, as follows:—From Salonika to the Greek frontier the railway is administered directly by a French company; from the frontier on to Constantinople through Bulgarian and Turkish territory it is controlled by a French Military Officer responsible to an Inter-Allied Commission in Constantinople. From Damascus to the Taurus the railway is the property of a French company as far as Aleppo, and beyond that is part of the Baghdad railway. It is at present under French control, though I have no precise information as to the relationship between the control officers and the Arab administration in the Arab area. As regards the last part of the question, the French Government continue to act in accord with the other Allied Powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DEPORTATION OF GENERAL GAIDA.

Mr. SWAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether Admiral Koltchak has now deported General Gaida on account of his liberal tendencies, in spite of the fact that he is well known to be strongly anti-Bolshevik; and whether his deportation was effected in spite of strong protest by the Allied representatives?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

VLADIVOSTOK GARRISON (COSSACKS).

Mr. SWAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an official Allied statement appeared in the Vladivostok newspapers of 30th September this year, signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Wonchterle, and stating that certain Allied and Russian soldiers had been murdered by some of Admiral Koltchak's Cossack troops in Vladivostok; whether an ultimatum was sent to General Rozanoff, Commandant of the Vladivostok garrison, giving him three days in which to remove these Cossack troops from his garrison or have them removed by force; whether General Rozanoff refused to comply with this ultimatum and referred the matter to Admiral Koltchak; whether Admiral Koltchak's reply to General Rozanoff was to the effect that the latter was, if necessary, to forcibly resist any interference on the part of the Allies with the Vladivostok garrison; whether, on Admiral Koltchak's refusal, the Cossack troops in question were forcibly expelled from Vladivostok; and, if not, whether it is part of the policy of the Allies to allow Allied subjects to be murdered without any effective action?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no information regarding Lieutenant-Colonel Wonehterle's article. The answers to the second, third, and fourth parts of the question are in the affirmative. The answer to the fifth part of the question is in the negative. The incident was satisfactorily arranged, and there is no reason to anticipate a repetition of these isolated fracas.

TRANSCASPIA.

Viscount CURZON: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any statement as to the position of affairs in Transcaspia; whether the Bolshevik forces have made a considerable advance in this area; whether their present position and movements are known; whether the extent of their forces is known; whether there is a prospect of their joining up with the Afghans; if so whether, in view of the probability of a concerted attack upon the North-West frontier, immediate steps can be taken to compel
Afghanistan to conclude peace and to disarm; whether certain Hindus have been trained at Moscow as agitators and dispatched to India with large sums of money; if any of them are known to have succeeded in entering the country; and if effective steps are being taken to guard against such persons making their way into India?

The PRIME MINISTER: The situation is too obscure and fluid at present to enable a statement to be made. There are indications of Bolshevik activity in the direction suggested by my Noble Friend. The Government of India are taking all possible precautions against Bolshevik intrigues.

PRISONERS (EXCHANGE NEGOTIATIONS)

Viscount CURZON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether any statement can now be made as to the progress or otherwise of the negotiations being carried on at Copenhagen with the Soviet Government's representative; if so, whether any details can now be given as to what subjects have been discussed; and whether the Soviet Government's representative has endeavoured to raise the question of peace negotiations?

The PRIME MINISTER: The negotiations with M. Litvinoff are confined to the exchange of prisoners, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a detailed statement as to their course. An announcement will, however, be made when the issue of the negotiations with M. Litvinoff is decided, and Papers dealing fully with the subject will be laid as soon as it is practicable to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, whether or not these negotiations succeed, arrangements are being made to supply food and clothes to these prisoners in the forthcoming winter?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are doing all we can to secure that object.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman assured that they will get to their proper destination?

H. M. S. "DRAGON."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government intend to demand
satisfaction for the damage done to His Majesty's ship "Dragon," the killing of nine of her crew, and the wounding of five others by Colonel Bermondt's artillery; and whether General Denikin has yet disowned Colonel Bermondt?

The PRIME MINISTER: This matter will be considered. General Yudenitch, I understand, repudiated Bermondt prior to this occurrence.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the last part of the question, which has been on the Paper for a week, namely, whether General Denikin has yet disowned Colonel Bermondt; and has anything yet been done to demand satisfaction for the death of our gallant sailors?

The PRIME MINISTER: General Yudenitch, who is acting more or less in concert with General Denikin, repudiated the occurrence.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has anything been done to get satisfaction for the death of our sailors?

Colonel BERMONDT AND GENERAL YUDENITCH.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has been reached with regard to the forces under Colonel Bermondt and the remnants of General Yudenitch's army; whether it is intended to provide transports for these troops; and, if so, which country is expected to find this shipping?

The PRIME MINISTER: No decision has yet been reached on this question by the Supreme Council in Paris. The second and third parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE (LONDON).

Sir S. HOARE: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the result of the deliberations of the recent Allied Conference in London on the subject of our relations with Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the matter will be raised in the Appropriation Bill this evening. It will be more convenient to answer together all questions on this subject in the course of the Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOROUGH BOUNDARIES (EXTENSION).

Mr. LANE-FOX: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the embarrassment caused to county administration by the constant extension of county and non- county borough boundaries, whereby large portions of the most valuable portions of their rateable area are taken from counties; and whether, in view of the difficulty in which the more populous counties are being placed in developing schemes of education, transport, and sanitation, and by the constant uncertainty of their position, the Government will hold up all such proposals for extension until the whole question of the future of local government in county areas has been thoroughly considered?

The PRIME MINISTER: No extension is allowed without first holding a local inquiry, at which full opportunity is afforded to all parties to give evidence in regard to the extension proposed, and I do not think it would be desirable to adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTIONAL WIRELESS STATIONS.

Mr. HOHLER: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the reference made by Lord Jellicoe to the developments in the intelligence system and improvements in the efficiency of our directional wireless stations towards the end of 1914 and the year 1915, which resulted in our being able to obtain reliable knowledge as to the movement of enemy vessels without the necessity of keeping our ships constantly at sea; is it the fact that like developments enabled the location of Zeppelins; and will he inquire as to who is the person to whom these developments are attributable, and state what preferment or reward he has received or will receive therefor?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is true that certain inventions did enable the location of Zeppelins to be discovered. They were made, however, by several officers in the course of their military duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government will authorize
local old age pension committees to make an extra grant to all old age pensioners in Christmas week on the same lines as boards of guardians do to their dependants?

Captain HACKING: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider favourably an Amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act to provide that no old age pensioner shall suffer any reduction in old age pension owing to he or she being in receipt of a war pension due to the loss of a son, etc., whilst on active service, where the receipt of the said war pension brings the total income above the maximum prescribed for in the Old Age Pension Act in determining the present conditional scale of old age pensions?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have now reached a decision with regard to old age pensions during the winter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Report of the Departmental Committee on Old Age Pensions has only recently been received and it has not been possible to prepare and pass a Bill this Session. A Bill will be introduced as early as possible next Session. The point raised by the question of the hon. and gallant Member for the Chorley Division of Lancashire (Captain Hacking) will, I hope, he covered by an addition to the income limit. It is not possible by administrative action to make any extra grant to pensioners at Christmas as is suggested.

Mr. NEWBOULD: In order to secure to these old age pensioners a Christmas dinner, can it be arranged that they should receive their pensions on Wednesday in Christmas week instead of on Friday as is usual?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it really impossible for the Government to take some emergency action by bringing in an emergency Bill? I am sure that the House would not mind sitting an extra day to increase the payment to these old age pensioners in view of the great distress many of them are suffering?

Mr. CLYNES: Is it not a fact that a Bill has been more or less in preparation, and is it not also probable that the House would welcome unanimously an opportunity of speedily passing the legislation to give to old age pensioners an increases?
In view of these facts cannot the Prime Minister take some steps to call upon the House to afford an opportunity to do it?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have agreed to submit definite proposals to the House of Commons, and a Bill has been drafted on those lines, but when we come to consider the possibility of it being carried through in time before Christmas we were not very sanguine. It is entirely a matter for the House of Commons itself. I am afraid it is too late now, because an extra day certainly will not secure the purpose. There must be a Money Resolution. There will have to be a Report stage upon that, and then there will be the different stages of the Bill, which afterwards has to go to the House of Lords. That is the difficulty. It is purely a Parliamentary difficulty. It is not a difficulty so far as the Government is concerned, but purely a difficulty which we all share.

Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the deep sympathy expressed by all hon. Members, is there not a possibility of getting the Bill through at one sitting?

Mr. CLYNES: Could not the difficulty be overcome by an agreed suspension of the Standing Orders or by taking some such steps as were taken on a previous occasion when, without legislation, the pension was increased by 2s. 6d. a week?

Mr. ROSE: Could it not be done by an Order in Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid not. This is the expenditure of money, and there must be a Money Resolution and there must be a Bill. I am not at all convinced that there would not be some criticism. Some might criticise us for having gone too far. Some might criticise us because we had not gone far enough. It does not matter from what point of view the criticism comes, it all takes time. It is only by the consent of practically all Members of the House that the Standing Orders can be suspended and a Bill of this character put through. I can assure the House it is not due to any reluctance on the part of the Government. If they are satisfied that there is a perfectly unanimous feeling in the House, there would no difficulty at all, but we should like to be quite sure of that before we start upon the matter.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Seeing that these old age pensioners are getting into debt from day to day through the increased cost of living, and seeing that the Government is unable to find time to introduce a Bill, will they make it retrospective?

Mr. G. THORNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain what the-wish of the House is in the matter? I believe it would be unanimous.

THE PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that is not quite the opinion we have upon the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] We shall make further inquiries on the subject. It is not a question of the Government finding the time; it is a question for the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "We will find the time!"] We will institute further inquiries to see if the feeling is quite universal and if there are any indications of there being any delay in the progress. I want to put this to the House: If there is any insistence upon strict conformity with all the Rules of the House, we could not, as a matter of time, get it through now.

Mr. CLYNES: Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members with whom we act on this side of the House are unanimous in agreeing not to oppose any feature of the Bill which has been drafted?

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he is making provision for increasing the weekly pay of these old age pensioners, he will also extend the provisions of his Bill so as to include the old police pensioners, who are suffering from the increased cost of living just as much as the old age pensioners?

THE PRIME MINISTER: That is an indication of the kind of difficulty we ex-perience—

Dr. MURRAY: It is meant to torpedo the Bill.

THE PRIME MINISTER: —the moment Amendments of that kind are suggested. It is impossible for any Bill of this kind to get through now before Christmas except as a consented Bill, which means that the House must be satisfied with the extent to which the Government is prepared to go.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Would not the same argument apply to all naval and mili-
tary pensioners? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They have earned their pensions.

Dr. MURRAY: That is meant to kill any proposal of this sort.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND REFORM.

Mr. JAMES GARDINER: 56.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to introduce a measure of land reform, in view of the anxiety of agriculturists now under notice to quit their holdings who have no place to go to in the event of being dispossessed?

THE PRIME MINISTER: It is hoped that legislation on this subject will be introduced early next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will provide that the three representatives of this country in the Assembly of the League of Nations shall be chosen by the House of Commons and in such a way as to ensure that one of the three shall represent the minorities in the House?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The appointment must be made on the responsibility of the Government, but careful attention will be given to this suggestion when the time comes to consider the appointment of the British representatives in the Assembly of the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO PRIME MINISTER.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will find it possible to attend this House at Question Time two days a week when Parliament reassembles?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I trust it may be possible to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY WITH TURKEY.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether any further decisions were reached at the recent inter-Allied discussions in London with regard to the situation in Syria; whether the
Allies agreed to the requests put to the French Government by His Highness the Emir Feisal; and whether he can make a statement regarding the international tension in Syria?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The situation in Syria is a part of the larger question of the future of Turkey, arrangements for the examination and settlement of which were discussed at the recent meetings in London. Conversations between the French Government and the Emir Feisal are proceeding in Paris, and have not yet reached a termination. I am happy to say that in consequence of these conversations and of the military arrangements between the British and French Governments, the tension in Syria has sensibly relaxed.

Lord R. CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of concluding a Treaty with Turkey quite apart from what will ultimately happen to parts of the Turkish Empire which will no longer belong to them?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that would be very difficult. The question of Asia Minor is a very difficult question. Then there is the question of Constantinople. There we have certainly experienced difficulty in coming to any conclusion in this most complicated problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing feeling that the funds still standing to the credit of the National Relief Fund should be used to relieve cases of distress arising in connection with the war, he will make representations that the administration of the fund should be placed under the charge of a Minister who would be responsible to Parliament for its administration?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member will be aware from the replies to previous questions that the use of the National Relief Fund for the relief of exceptional distress due to unemployment is now being considered by the Committee of the fund. An announcement on the subject may be expected shortly; but I may say that the suggestion of Parliamentary control over funds collected by voluntary effort is not one which I feel able to adopt.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that these funds were. contributed by voluntary effort, and did not the assurance that it was to be a national fund mean that it would be properly administered by the Government?

Mr. KILEY: Are we to understand that the distribution of the fund will in future be limited to those people who are out of employment?

THE PRIME MINISTER: No; it is distress which is due to the War. There are so many funds of the character described by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) that I am afraid if a rule were made in one case it would have to be extended.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE REPORTS.

Sir A. FELL: 68.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to give the decision of the Government on the question of the Channel Tunnel; and, supposing there may be still some points to be settled, can he give an assurance that subject to these points being cleared up the Government will be prepared to give facilities for the Bill next Session?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it will not be possible to announce the Government's decision before the Recess. It is, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, a matter of first rate importance, and requires careful and detailed examination by the expert advisers of the Government. We have only just received a report on the subject from the experts, and have had no time to consider it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are the Government opposed to this Channel Tunnel, or have not they made up their minds as to its desirability?

THE PRIME MINISTER: It surely depends on expert advice as to its military and naval effects. We could not act on our own responsibility, without being assured that the security of the country would not be imperilled in the least by the construction of the tunnel, and it has to be considered very carefully. I cannot conceive of any question which ought to be examined more closely.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not a fact that all the experts differ on this point?

Sir A. FELL: Are they also considering the immense value this tunnel would be to the country in the event of any further or future war?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Undoubtedly that is the strongest element in favour of the proposal; but, on the other hand, there are elements of undoubted jeopardy which we must consider very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL LIBERAL FEDERATION.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the programme of the National Liberal Federation includes the Disestablishment of the Church of England; and whether this is the considered policy of the Government?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The reply to both questions is in the negative.

Captain W. BENN: Does the Government accept as its policy the programme of the National Liberal Federation, as the Prime Minister stated in his speech at Manchester?

THE PRIME MINISTER: To the best of my recollection of what that programme meant. I am not quite sure what it did mean.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN COMMITMENTS.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 74.
asked the Prime Minister whether, when Parliament reassembles, the House of Commons will be informed as to what foreign commitments have been made during the interval?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

EXPORT TRAFFIC.

Major COURTHOPE: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether quantities of military stores are being conveyed in barges from Calais to Richborough; whether these barges return to Calais empty; whether he is aware that a large quantity of coal intended for export to Calais and urgently required in France is waiting for shipment; and whether he will consider the possibility of the barges which carry
military stores from Calais to England being employed to carry return cargoes of coal from England to Calais?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The Ministry of Munitions has had under consideration the possibility of utilising the barges returning empty to France from Richborough for commercial freight, and instructions have been given to the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, the Ministry's agents at Richborough, to afford facilities at commercial rates, so far as the resources of the port permit. The port is not specially fitted for handling coal, but the question of what expenditure would he required to provide the necessary facilities is being examined. I recognise the urgency of the matter, and a decision shall be reached as soon as possible.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. HOGGE: 80.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government's new solution of the coal difficulty is to be announced?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this subject on Monday.

HOUSEHOLDERS' SUPPLIES.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 86.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the difficulty of consumers in obtaining household coal; whether this is due to the differentiation in the price between coal sold for domestic use and coal sold for industrial purposes; and whether when this differentiation was made measures were taken to secure adequate supplies for householders?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that difficulties in obtaining household coal have occurred in certain localities, but such difficulties cannot altogether be avoided so long as the total supply of coal available for inland consumption remains substantially below the demand. Every effort has been and will continue to be made to secure the observance of instructions which have been given to all the collieries that the supply of coal for house purposes must have precedence over all other demands. As stated on the 10th December, in reply to the hon. Member for Poplar, South, my right hon.
Friend has no reason to suppose that the differentiation in price to which he refers has affected the position.

COAL SHORTAGE, WEST HAM.

Mr. W. THORNE: 106.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the shortage of coal in the borough of West Ham; that there is only one week's supply in the borough; that the supplies coming forward are not sufficient to meet the need of the borough; and that unless steps are immediately taken to send forward coal over the Great Eastern Railway to the various depots in the district, the shortage at Christmas will he very acute; can he see his way to advise that the coal should be sent forward from the London and North Western Railway depot at Canning Town to supply the southern portion of the borough; and is he aware that the town council have taken steps to hire motor lorries to take the coal round the streets for sale, and that a number of families in the borough of West Ham have been without coal in consequence of the shortage; can he state whether he has received a letter from the Mayor of West Ham, dated 11th December, about the matter; and does he intend taking any action in the matter?

Mr. NEAL: This matter was discussed with a deputation, which included the Mayor of West Ham, on the 15th December, and the Railway Company concerned is taking every possible step to accept all coal which may be offered during the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND BELGIUM (DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY).

Major COURTHOPE: 76 and 77.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that there are British firms owning property in the devastated areas of France and Belgium who cannot finance the rebuilding and equipment of their ruined factories without some guarantee that they will eventually receive reparation for damage done during the War; and whether His Majesty's Government will give an assurance that they will insist upon the payment of proper compensation in such cases;
(2) whether the Reparation Commission in Paris will deal with the claims of British subjects and firms for compensa-
tion for the destruction of property situated in the devastated areas of France and Belgium?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The British claims in respect of property in France or Belgium carried off, seized, injured, or destroyed by the acts of Germany, or of damage directly in consequence of hostilities, or of any operations of war, will be presented by His Majesty's Government to the Reparation Commission through the British Reparation Commission. His Majesty's Government is not, of course, in a position to say what the Commission will or will not do as regards claims presented to it, but the right to claim compensation from Germany in respect of the damage referred to is expressly given by Clause 9 of Annex 1 to the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty of Peace.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERMINATION OF WAR.

Major PRESCOTT: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether an Order in Council can be issued affecting the case of demobilised men who were in business prior to the War and whose premises were sub-let for the duration of the War; whether he is aware that many demobilised men are unable to get possession of their former business premises owing to the legal claim that the War has not been officially terminated; and if he can name a possible date when the War will be officially declared at an end?

Mr. HOGGE: 78.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give a forecast when the termination of the War will be reached within the meaning of the Termination of the War Act, 1918?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the previous replies on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR HONOURS.

Mr. HOGGE: 79.
asked the Prime Minister whether any further list of War honours is to be published and, if so, when?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative. It is hoped that the list will be published towards the end of January.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE (FINANCIAL SECRETARY).

Mr. HOGGE: 81.
asked the Prime Minister whether the post of Financial Secretary to the War Office has been filled?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Not yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

HOME-GROWN WHEAT.

Major HOWARD: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether, when the undertaking was given by the Government on the 19th November, 1918, that the minimum price of home-grown wheat should not be less than 71s. 4d. per quarter of 480 lbs. an undertaking was also given that the above minimum price should be the maximum; and, if so, to whom, and also why was it given?

THE PRIME MINISTER: No undertaking of the kind was given. The Government undertaking was that the prices paid to farmers for controlled cereals harvested in 1919 should not be less than those prevailing (November, 1918), which, in subsequent statements, were defined as 71s. 11d. per 480 lbs. for wheat of sound quality. The actual price at which wheat of the current crop is being bought is determined by the Food Controller, and the present average is about 1s. above the promised minimum.

BACON AND PORK (PROFIT).

Major Earl WINTERTON: 113.
asked the Food Controller if he is aware that retailers of bacon and pork complain that the new price of pigs per score dead weight leaves them an insufficient margin of profit; and if he proposes to take any steps in the matter by raising the maximum price of pork and bacon?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I am satisfied that there is an adequate margin of profit for retailers on the sale of home-produced bacon. As regards pork, I have received some representations that the retailer's profit is insufficient, but I understand that the trade generally are agreed that they should reconsider the position before these representations are pressed.

SUGAR.

Sir W. BULL: 115.
asked why it is that whilst every person is rationed to ½ lb. of sugar per week, the confectioners' shops are full of sweets and other condiments largely composed of sugar?

Mr. ROBERTS: It has not been considered advisable to prohibit or drastically to curtail the manufacture of confectionery, owing to the serious unemployment which would inevitably result. Such a measure would cause great distress amongst a class of people who would have difficulty in finding other means of earning a living, and have in many instances been encouraged to adopt this occupation in consequence of partial disablement.

CATTLE GRADING.

Captain Sir B. STANIER (by Private Notice): asked the Food Controller under what Act of Parliament or Regulation Government graders are empowered to make scissor marks upon rejected cattle which are the private property of farmers; whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken as to the legality of the order to Government graders to refuse to deal with cattle unless would be sellers of cattle agree beforehand to the marking of their cattle if they are not purchased by the Government; and whether he is aware that the Order issued by him last week, No. L.S.P. 11, is causing serious apprehension among all meat producers in the country; and will he at once withdraw the Order?

Mr. ROBERTS: I confess that I have not yet received notice of this question. I have only just come, across from the office, and it had not been received there. The question is of such a character that I must receive notice of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY WITH TURKEY.

Mr. BRIANT: 82.
asked when negotiations for the Treaty of Peace with Turkey will begin?

THE PRIME MINISTER: No date has yet been fixed for it, but it will be soon after Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (EVACUATION BY ROUMANIAN TROOPS).

Dr. MURRAY: 84.
asked the Prime Minister whether Roumanian troops have now evacuated Hungary?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The evacuation, if not yet complete, is in process of completion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATOUM (BRITISH OCCUPATION).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 87.
asked whether the British occupation of Batoum continues; if so, how many troops are still there; and when it is intended to withdraw them?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second, one British and two Indian battalions, a total of approximately 3,000 men. As regards the last part of the question, the withdrawal of the troops is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL (VACATION OF SEAT).

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 89.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Court of Chancery (Funds) Act, 1872, Section 4, does not relieve the Paymaster-General of the liability to vacate his seat and does not repeal the reference to that office in Schedule H of 30 and 31 Vie., cap. 102?

THE PRIME MINISTER: In a matter of this kind the Government must rely upon the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. I cannot, therefore, add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on Monday last.

Major WOOD: Will the Government undertake to bring in a Bill of indemnity in the case of a common informer taking action against the Paymaster-General?

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO (SERBIANS IN OCCUPATION).

Mr. R. McNEILL: 90
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, since his statement that the Government had no official confirmation of the reports concerning excesses and high-handed proceedings by Serbians in occupation of Montenegro, he has received any information on the subject from the Montenegrin Government; if so, will he say what is the purport of such information;
(2) in view of the fact that the conduct of the Serbians in occupation of Monte-
negro resembles the ferocity of the German occupation of Belgium, whether in conjunction with our other Allies he has considered any policy designed to put an end to the oppression of Montenegro by relieving her of the Serbians, who are treating her as conquered territory with a view to her forcible annexation;
(3) whether he has any information to the effect that a number of Montenegrins have been assassinated, imprisoned, or otherwise ill-treated by Serbians for refusing to swear allegiance to the King of Serbia;
(4) whether a proposal was made to the Peace Conference by the Montenegrin Government that, to enable elections to be held in Montenegro under free conditions, the country should be temporarily occupied by British and American troops; and, if such a course is impracticable, will he say what alternative policy has been suggested to enable elections to be held free from Serbian control!

THE PRIME MINISTER: I cannot usefully add anything to what I have already said on the subject. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that as this is a question which is to be discussed at the forthcoming Allied Conference I cannot make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL.

Mr. A. SHORT: 9.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will star the Municipal Corporations (Qualification of Clergymen) Bill as a Government measure and secure its passage this Session?

THE PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN SUBMARINES.

Lieut.-Colonel C. LOWTHER: 96.
asked the Prime Minister what precautions have been taken by the Supreme Council or the Allied Governments to prevent the secret building of submarines in Germany; and whether his attention has been called to the report circulated in the French Press that over 200 submarines are in process of construction in different parts of Germany?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Under the terms of the Armistice there have been frequent inspections by Sub-Commissions of the Allied Naval Armistice Commission of German ports; and such inspections have revealed no indications of any such action. Certain other steps have also been taken; and it is not considered that there are any grounds whatever for the suggestion that submarines are being constructed in Germany, either secretly or otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PACIFIC CABLE.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER SHEE: 97.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Imperial Communications Board have considered the duplication of the Pacific cable urgently required by the Governments of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, as well as in the interests of the whole Empire, the extension of the Pacific Cable Board's activities to the establishment and control of a connecting cable across the Atlantic, this cable to be in addition to the already existing Government-controlled cable captured from the Germans, and the purchase or lease of the Direct United States Company's cable which is at present the subject of litigation between that company and an American company?

THE PRIME MINISTER: Various suggestions on these subjects have been before the Imperial Communications Committee, but no decision in present circumstances is possible. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, fully represented on the Pacific Cable Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYES.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 98.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is practicable to inform the House how many officials and employés there are supported out of public funds in Great Britain and Ireland; and, if so practicable, will he give the figures so that the public may realise the burden to the national purse of maintaining individuals who are not engaged directly in private production?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of employés directly employed in Government offices may be seen from the monthly
Returns of staffs, the latest of which is published as Command Paper 448. 'The employés in Government industrial establishments are not included in these figures, and vary considerably from time to time, but the number on the 1st November was approximately 178,900. Figures are not available showing the number of persons not directly employed by the Government but in receipt of salaries defrayed in whole or in part from public funds or grants, for example—teachers, police, and other employés of local authorities. I am not sure whether such an implication is intended in the last part of the question, but, if so, we cannot accept the suggestion that the salaries of persons employed on public services are an unnecessary burden on the national funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREMIUM BONDS.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 99.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has observed that the French Premium Bonds, amounting to £160,000,000, have been readily subscribed for by French and British people; and whether he is now ready to revise his opinion as to the efficacy of these Bonds as a means of raising money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen statements in the public Press as to the success of the loan. Having regard to the very favourable terms offered to the subscribers apart from the prizes, I see no reason in the success of this issue for revising my opinion as to the probable results of such an issue as was suggested here.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEWIS (MAINLAND TRANSPORT SERVICE).

Dr. MURRAY: 100.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that from the first week of the. War practically every able-bodied man in the Island of Lewis served in either the Navy or the Army; that thousands of these men have now returned to their homes and find great difficulty in re-establishing themselves in their former occupation, namely, the fishing industry; and that daily communication with the mainland is absolutely necessary to the success of that industry; and whether, in view of the winter fishing now commencing and which is the most important fishing of the year, he will
take immediate steps to restore the daily-service in vogue for over thirty years, and which has been recently reduced by one-half owing to the action of the Treasury?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been told of the excellent war record of the men of Lewis, and I regret to hear that some have experienced difficulty in re-establishing themselves in their former occupation. Other opportunities of employment, however, exist on a considerable scale, there being work available at the moment for practically every able-bodied man in the Island. During the winter fishing season, other vessels besides the mail steamer are used for the transport of fish to the main-land, and I am advised that a daily service by the mail steamer is not essential to the success of the fishery industry. Such daily services could only be provided at a heavy cost which, in present circumstances, the Government would not feel justified in asking the taxpayers to bear.

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that since this service was instituted, about thirty years ago, the increased traffic, and since the War the increased freightage and the increased passenger rates have met any possible increase in the subsidy that may be required to keep up the daily service?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand not.

Dr. MURRAY: I will draw attention to this matter on the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON MILLS (SALES).

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): 102.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that an extensive sale of cotton mills is going on at prices in many cases amounting to six times the paid-up capital of the companies; will he say if these profits contribute in any way to the national revenue, either through Excess Profits Duty or to Income Tax; and, if not, will he take into consideration the necessity of appropriating these profits to help to meet the national indebtedness due to the War?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to the transactions to which the hon. Member refers. The question whether liability to Excess Profits Duty or Income Tax arises in respect of profits
derived from these sales can only be determined upon a full examination of the facts and circumstances of each particular case; but I can assure the hon. Member that, where such liability exists, steps are taken by the Commissioners of Inland Revnue to secure the payment of any duty which may be due. I will bear in mind the -suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPIRITS (IMPORTATION FROM UNITED STATES).

Colonel GRETTON: 104.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the quantities of potable spirits which will have to be exported from the United States to Europe owing to the Prohibition Law; if there is any general restriction on the importation into the United Kingdom of very large quantities of spirits; if the immature Spirits Act applies to imported spirits; and, if so, what steps are taken to ensure that immature spirits are not imported?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to the quantity of potable spirits in the United States or its intended destination. There is no restriction on the importation of spirits into the United Kingdom either as to quantity or age, but under the Immature Spirits Act no imported spirits may be delivered for home consumption until they have reached the prescribed age.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the age of imported spirits can be ascertained?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Customs require a certificate showing, to their satisfaction, that the spirit has been in bond for the time required, or they keep it in bond for the required time.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

MANIPULATIVE CLASSES (WOMEN).

GRUNDY: 117.
asked the Post-master-General whether he is prepared to apply the Report of the Committee on Women in Industry to the manipulative classes in the Post Office, seeing that the Sub-committee of the National Whitley Council which is investigating the organisation of the Civil Service is confining its attention to the clerical classes; and
whether, in view of the grave discontent which exists among the women in the Post Office service, he will have careful inquiry made with a view to a satisfactory reply being given?

The ASSISTANT - POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease): A similar question was put to me on the 4th December by the hon. Member for Bolton, and I can add nothing to the reply then given—that the matter is one affecting the Civil Service as a whole, and that, as regards the Post Office, no separate action could be taken.

TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS (HOLLAND AND FRANCE).

Mr. SHORT: 118.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the telegraphic delays which occur above the normal time required in the transmission of messages between England and Holland; that this delay in cases amounts to twenty hours, whereas between France and Holland it is only three hours; that between Belgium and Holland there is no delay in transmission of telegraphic messages; that the delay between England and Holland results in the Dutch Press being very badly informed on English affairs; that French and German news get through much quicker, and appear in earlier editions sometimes a whole day before the English news; whether any steps can be taken on the English side to remedy this delay; whether the congestion arises through the temporary time-limit which has been imposed for the handing in of telegrams after 6 p.m. and before 9 a.m. at a charge of 1d. per word, messages handed in between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. being charged at the rate of 2d. per word; and whether he will take steps to have this remedied so as to ensure a quicker and better service between this country and Holland?

Mr. PEASE: The delay sustained by telegrams exchanged with Holland has been due to heavy pressure on traffic. The service has, however, recently been improved by an extension of the use of multiplex apparatus, and the present delay in the outward direction under normal conditions is from four to six hours. Steps are being taken to improve the service further.
I am informed that direct telegraphic communication has not been re-established between Holland and France. At present the telegrams are being sent [...] this country, and add materially to the congestion. It is probably the case that the direct land
lines between Holland on the one hand and Belgium and Germany on the other afford a more rapid service than the cables with this country. The condition that Press telegrams sent at reduced rates must be handed in and transmitted between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. is laid down by the International Telegraph Regulations. It was suspended during the War, but has again been brought into operation under the normal arrangements with the foreign Administrations concerned. I do not think that it has caused any addition to the delay.
I should add that a wireless service has been in operation for some months between this country and Amsterdam as an auxiliary to the cable service.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENT HOLDERS (EPPING FOREST COMMISSIONERS).

Mr. NEWBOULD (by Private Notice): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to a Mass Meeting of Allotment Holders from all parts of London, held in the Essex Hall last night to protest against the wholesale eviction of plotholders by the Epping Forest Commissioners, the London County Council, the Office of Works, and other authorities, and in view of the implied promise made by the Board of Agriculture that plot-hilders should not be disturbed for two years after the War, what action, if any, he proposes to take?

Colonel SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): The report of the meeting referred to has not yet reached the Board, and there has been therefore no opportunity of considering it. As explained in previous answers to questions in this House, the Board have no power to over-ride the discretion vested in some of the bodies whose action is now being objected to, but on receiving the report of the meeting the Board will consider what action, if any, can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Major TYRON (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of a British local authority issuing securities in the United States of America with the approval of the
Treasury, the provisions of Section 46 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, are sufficient to secure not only that such securities are exempt from liability to Income Tax and Super-tax if held by persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, but also that the local authority is entitled to deduct the interest paid on such securities from its income liable to Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Interest paid by a local authority in the United Kingdom on securities exempt from Income Tax under the provisions of Section 46 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, will, if payable out of the taxable income of the local authority be allowed as a deduction in computing the liability to Income Tax of such authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTS RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. JUSTICE SANKEY'S JUDGMENT.

STATEMENT BY SIR A. GEDDES.

Sir D. MACLEAN (by Private Notice): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been directed to the judgment of Mr. Justice Sankey, declaring the illegality of the restriction of imports under the Act of 1876.; whether he would give particulars of existing restriction Orders; and what. steps he proposed to take in relation to them?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): My attention has been called to Mr. Justice Sankey's judgment, affecting the system of control of importation which was brought into extensive use by the late Government in the years 1915–16, A complete statement of all the restrictions on importation still remaining in force after 1st September last (when the greater number were removed) will be found in Command Paper No. 454.
These are, apparently, all affected by the judgment, except, firstly, firearms and military arms and parts thereof, ammunition and explosives, and, secondly, the articles specifically prohibited under Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, or other enactments.
In view of the judgment, the Customs have been instructed, pending either reversal on appeal or legislative action, to allow the importatioin of all articles affected thereby. An appeal against the decision is being entered.
Early in the new Session His Majesty's Government will press forward legislation to secure powers to reimpose restrictions of the limited scope indicated in the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill.
Meanwhile, I think it is desirable that importers should clearly understand that, in the event of these powers being conferred by Parliament, or in the event of the judgment being reversed on appeal, licences to import restricted goods will not be granted merely on the ground that the goods had been ordered between now and the date of the re-establishment of the restrictions, but will be based solely on consideration of the reasonable requirements of the country.
I also wish to say to the House that, in face of the judgment, His Majesty's Government will not be in a position to restrict importation from countries affected by a collapse in exchange unless or until definite enabling legislation for the purpose is enacted by Parliament.

Mr. LAMBERT: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government propose next year to bring in legislation to. make legal what is now illegal?

Sir A. GEDDES: My right hon. Friend has correctly understood the answer.

Mr. LAMBERT: Who is to be the judge of the reasonable requirements of the country? Is it the Board of Trade? [HON. MEMBERS: "The House of Commons !"]

Sir A. GEDDES: Parliament, clearly.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Who were the Law Officers who were responsible for this Regulation that has got the Government into this position?

Sir A. GEDDES: At the time it was done I was not in this country; I was serving the country in a more unpleasant fashion; but my recollection is that it was Lord Buckmaster and Sir John Simon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he can give any information as to the course of business until the end of the Session, and also on what date it is intended that Parliament shall resume duty next year?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The business is practically what is on the Paper, with, of course, the Lords Amendments. To-morrow, time will be taken up in dealing with Lords Amendments, which we hope will be received by that time. As to the time of meeting next Session, we have not actually fixed the date, but it will be as near as we can arrange to 10th February.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask whether, in connection with business, steps will be taken by the Leader of the House to ascertain the views of hon. Members on the question of permitting the measure dealing with old age pensions to go through without opposition?

Mr. BONAR LAW: After we had discussed the question in the Cabinet the Prime Minister left it to me to decide, as Leader of the House, whether or not I could ask the House to pass this Bill practically without examination. I had some interviews through my right hon. Friend with the Gentlemen opposite, and I believe I could rely on their giving their assistance, but I had to consider what was likely to happen if anyone took the view that, as the House of Commons was responsible for expenditure, the Government would not be justified in asking them to pass without discussion a Bill which involved a permanent increase of something like £10,000,000. If I could at all be assured that it would pass by agreement, I should be quite ready to put down a Resolution to-morrow and to carry it through all its stages to-morrow. I am bound to say that the reason I decided against that was that I did not expect that. unanimity, but I think there. would be no harm in my putting it down, and if there is any opposition we shall not proceed tomorrow.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as all those who are sitting on this side representing the Opposition are concerned, we would raise no difficulty at all in regard to any measure of the kind?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I see no objection to the course I have indicated of putting it down on the Paper to-morrow. The point I had to consider was this: We are all agreed that the House of Commons is responsible for expenditure; would I have been justified, unless I had some preliminary indication of the feeling of the House, in even asking the House to grant
an expenditure of £10,000,000, practically without examination? That is the question. I will put down the Motion on the distinct understanding that unless it is practically unanimous we shall go no further.

Lord R. CECIL: Which Orders does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to-night, and is it seriously intended to take the Report of the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall take the first three Orders and the fifth. We shall not ask the House to proceed with the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill, as it is impossible to carry it through all its stages.

Mr. MARRIOTT: When is it proposed to take the honourable remnant of the Electricity Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as it comes from the Lords we shall take the Electricity Bill.

Colonel GREIG: When is it proposed to take the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The moment we get it; I hope to-morrow.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Fourth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 238.]

MESSAGE FROM 'THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Dogs Regulation (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill, Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill,
Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Amendment Bill,
County and Borough Police Bill,
Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Amendment) Bill,
Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Amendment Bill,
674
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders
(No. 1) Bill, without Amendment. Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill,
Government of India Bill,
Public Libraries Bill,
Nurses Registration (No. 2) Bill,
Nurses Registration (Ireland) Bill,
Nurses Registration (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to the Amendment to—

Patents and Designs Bill, without Amendment.

Aliens Restriction Bill,—That they disagree with the Amendments proposed by this House in lieu of certain of the Amendments made by the Lords, and insist upon the said Amendments, for which disagreement they assign Reasons.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with regard to Wills deposited under Section twenty-one of the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, with the commissary clerk of the county of Edinburgh, and required for the purpose of confirmation as executor or of completing a title to heritable estate in Scotland." [Regimental Debts (Deposit of Wills) (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, and the enactments amending that Act, in relation to orders for possession and ejectment." [Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

NURSES REGISTRATION (No. 2) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]

NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]

NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.

Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments proposed in lieu of certain Lords Amendments disagreed to to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]

INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords.]

Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]

REGIMENTAL DEBTS (DEPOSIT OF WILLS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords.]

Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.

4.0 P.M.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: A very large portion of what I shall have to say to the House will be certainly not additional statements, but in tile form 4.0 P.M which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I in other days would have known it very well as administering interrogatories. I only hope that the reply will not be one of the nature to which we are accustomed—mean of a mere formal nature. The reason for snaking inquiries and gating full and frank answers, which I am sure my right hon. Friend desires to give, if he can consistently with public interest do so, was never snore important than it is today, because there is public uneasiness all the world over, and people are suspicious of all Governments. That is a perfectly natural consequence of the War, which was undoubtedly a shock to the normal authority of every Government throughout the world. If there be anything which has been thoroughly discredited as a result of the War, and of what we now know of what preceded the War, it is what is known as secret diplomacy. I think what the world as well as this country wants is that, as far as possible, the "cards should be put on the table," and that the "blinds should be up." I quite agree that what is known as short-sleeve diplomacy is unattainable in many respects, and, indeed, at certain stages undesirable. But the point I am urging as the basis of the inquiries I am going to press on the Prime Minister is that there has been a fundamental change in the attitude of European. countries with regard to their governors, especially in respect of foreign affairs. We have been accustomed in the past to be ruled very largely by what is known as the governing classes. Neither the Prime Minister nor I belong to that class. The real change that has come is this: that the people of Europe arc subconsciously determined that
government shall not be so much from the top down as from the bottom upwards, and that carries with it the necessary consequence of taking the people into the confidence of those who for the time being rule them, and especially so to-clay in relation to our undertakings and treaties with foreign countries. I make this complaint against the Government with regard to that part of it, and it is this: Often they have appealed to us, and not in vain I think my right hon. Friend will admit, that we should observe discretion because a point raised would be contrary to the public interest, and over and over again, when we got the information from, say, the Paris Press or the American Press, we found that those topics which we had been asked to speak about only in hushed whispers, or to ask questions to the point of discretion, or without any point at all, had been discussed in the open Senate in Paris and in Washington.
We had a Conference held in London the other day, and in response to a question which I put to the Prime Minister he gave what I may call a thoroughly old-fashioned answer. He touched all the points, but left us without any real information. I think that was so. I am going to ask the Prime Minister now—I will not say amplify that reply, because there was really no information in it—if he can give us some genuine information about what passed at Downing Street during those fateful days. First of all, with regard to France. This is the first question I want to put to him. Under the Peace Treaty there was a tri-partite agreement, which we endorsed by legislative action here, between ourselves and the United States and France, binding all three parties ft) come to the assistance of our neighbour across the Channel should there be unprovoked attack on the part of Germany. What I should like to know is this: whether, in the event of the possibility—I will not call it probability—of the United States Senate not ratifying the Treaty, and thereby performing their share of the obligation, has the Prime Minister, on behalf of this country, come to any arrangement with France whereby we should undertake the whole of that duty which was, as we understood, to be shared by three? Whether that is good or not I am not arguing at the present moment, and That is a matter for future discussion. All I am asking for is this—that we should know where we stand with regard to this-very important and, indeed, vital matter.
I would press this further query arising out of that—whether, supposing His Majesty's Government, in their considered opinion, come to the conclusion that it is the duty of this country to undertake that position, whether the United States comes in or no, will they, before they come to an agreement with France on that point, consult Parliament before they arrive at such a position with regard to it that they present to us nothing more than a fait accompli to accept or reject, and which, if we reject, would involve the downfall of the Government? That is not a position in which any of us who feel any sort of responsibility want to be put in discussing a matter of that kind. I ask, should that eventuality arise—and I hope it will really not arise, and I will say something about the position of the United States later on—that Parliament will have a full and fair opportunity of discussing the proposals of the Government before they come to an agreement with France which would be binding in honour. I feel a certain amount of delicacy in saying another word upon this point.
May I make it clear that none of us can do any thing but emulate each other in admiration and sympathy with France for what she has gone through? There ran be nothing but the profoundest admiration and deepest sympathy with France. The whole world also recognises a man when they see him, and they have nothing but admiration for the patriotic splendour of the conduct of the great Prime Minister of France. We sincerely hope that the accident which befell him on his journey here is one from which he will suffer no ill effects, and that he may speedily recover. I would like to say this to the Prime Minister—that he may not be aware of what I would like to press upon him as to what is the feeling of a large part of the population of this country who follow these questions. It is this: There is a large amount of public nervousness as to how far this country may be drawn into obligations to, and 'close alliance with, France beyond our capacity to bear that burden. We, too, have borne our share in the fight, and there is a limit, and a very well-defined limit, beyond which I do not think it is either our obligation nor, indeed, have we the capacity to go. Whatever may be implicit in what I have said, I leave it at that, and say nothing more on the point. With regard to Italy, which was the next country the Prime Minister adumbrated, shall I
say, in his reply, can he tell us any more about the position of the Allies in relation to the great question of the Adriatic—a storm centre of a very dangerous nature? I do not want to say anything more about that, other than that I think we are entitled to know rather more than the Prime Minister thought fit to tell us on Monday last. Now, about the well-worn subject of Russia, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to tell me whether he would regard as final his answer on Monday last to a supplementary question—and sometimes even so admirably skilled a Parliamentarian as the Prime Minister may give an answer on the spur of the moment which he would not give if he had more than a second's notice in which to reply? This was the answer:
If the Soviet authorities in Russia want to make peace, they must make it with the people with whom they arc at war—with General Denikin, General Koltchak, and others. They must make peace amongst themselves first." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1919, col. 24].
Let us see what that means. The logic of that really is that until civil war ceases in Russia—and so far as all the material portents, at any rate, are concerned it looks as if that will end by the defeat of Keltchak and Denikin—until that time arrives, and if and when that time arrives, that is the only time when the Government and the Allies will consider any suggestions, any advances of any kind, for making peace with Russia. 1 think that is a very serious position to take up, and I would remind him of what I ventured to remind him of some weeks ago. Pitt, in the days of the French Revolution, when the Terror was at its height, did not disdain, indeed he sought, opportunities of getting into diplomatic touch with those who were responsible for what government and what authority existed in those terrible days in France. Later on, diplomatic relations were broken off because war broke out; but I want to press this very strongly on the Prime Minister, because it is a matter of very great importance: Are we to leave that vast country absolutely alone, so far as any diplomatic relations are concerned, until, as far as we can practically see, Bolshevism is triumphant over Koltchak and Denikin? If it is wrong for us now to have anything to do with those who are the dominant authority in Russia at present, it must be wrong then. In all these matters we have to recognise facts, and I hope that His Majesty's Government in this matter will not neglect any
opportunity which they can honestly and reasonably undertake of doing anything to bring peace to that terrible inferno, with its awful reactions on the whole of the civilised world. How can we look forward with anything but dismay to a Russia chaotic, inimical, indeed actually at enmity with us, when there is no nation in the world to whom a friendly, a peaceful, and a prosperous Russia means so much as it does to us? I would call my right hon. Friend's attention once again to what the Secretary of State for War said in this House, on Monday, I think it was. Whatever course he may be compelled to take, he shows no change of heart. That is very evident to those who listen to him, and while I can imagine my -right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dragging his friend and colleague out of Russia by reluctant coat-tails, I suggest to him that what it really wants is a rope—not in an illegal sense at all! It wants strong measures on his part to see that his right hon. Friend carries out the policy that the Prime Minister has laid down to this House, and which, as I understand by his answer, the Allies have agreed to, a very satisfactory state of affairs if, as I hope it does, it means the policy of nonintervention in Russia on the part of all the Allies.
What about Turkey? A question was asked by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) to-day, which I could not quite catch, as I was engaged in conversation at the time, but I understood it dealt with the question as to whether this country would see that some of those subject races, who all these centuries long have suffered under Turkish rule, shall be freed once and for all from Turkish domination. There were handed to me a moment before I came into the House some quotations from my right hon. Friend's own speeches on the matter.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): On Turkey?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes. I will not trouble him with them, except to remind him that no one in the whole course of this War has spoken with more eloquence and passionate conviction about the duty of civilisation to rescue these countries from what he has described as the bloody tyranny of the Turk than he has, and that was implemented by Mr. Asquith when he was Prime Minister It is a matter on which not only Christendom but the whole of civilisation is deeply interested, and I
sincerely trust that, no matter what temptations may be dangled before the Allies or what material reasons may be urged upon the Government, they will not be deflected from that great, lofty, moral duty, implemented by solemn Parliamentary undertakings, which has been imposed upon the people of this country. Another point I should like to urge upon my right hon. Friend is that every possible step should be taken to bring about the ratification of peace. Unless that is done—although we may have to leave out many whom we should like to have in—you will never get joint efforts banded together to start really clearing up the mess, and I should like, indeed the country would like, some information from the Prime Minister as to when he thinks that will take place. I urge upon him this: to take the risks and get it done, for I am certain it would result in good. At present indecision, hesitation, doubt, fear, all arise, and you will never get an improvement on that until this part of the question resolves itself into certainty.
I pass from these queries to say a few words with regard to the economic and financial situation. That was the second paragraph in the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to me, on Monday. He said that the economic and financial situation had been examined in detail, and that in order to remedy a fall in the exchange, prejudicial to the two nations, it had been arranged that permission should be given to the French Government to apply for a loan in this country. As far as we are concerned, I am sure we wish the French Government good luck in their effort to raise money here, but I want to say a word or two on the European position particularly, and in passing I should like to say this. We had a very interesting discussion yesterday on currency. One listened to the Debate, which was a very useful Debate I thought, but the real question came out again and again. Questions of currency, the inflation of credit, all these are only symptoms of the disease, and the regulation of currency or further creations of credit may be useful, but they are not the radical measures which are necessary to cure the evil. The evil lies much deeper than that, and, as was said by severa,1 speakers yesterday and endorsed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the true remedies consist in increased production, stoppage of borrowing, and, above all, cessation of public and private
extravagance. I do not want to hammer away again at the Government on the question of public extravagance; they know my views about that, but I would urge this, in so far as any remarks of mine will go outside this House, and that is the immense importance of the individuals, the citizens of the country, in their own private capacity, recognising their public duty in this matter.
It has been said before—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, all have said the same thing, and we all say the same thing, but can anybody go about the country and sec any check, any decline, in private extravagance? Not a bit. The whole social Jazz dance of extravagance goes madly on, and I wonder how long the people of this country will be before they realise that they are dancing over an inferno which at any moment, with the collapse of credit, might give, and then they would see the results, which they themselves have so largely contributed to, engulfing themselves and those they love in that disaster. What is the position with regard to the exchange in a few countries in Europe? What is our own position? In pre-war days we stood preeminent amongst the nations of the world as the great financial centre of it, and I do not see any reason why we should not recover that position. We ought to. Our geographical position should help us. If we are worthy of our task, and live up to our honourable traditions in the world and our own duties as private citizens, we shall get back to it in time. So far as our relations with the United States are concerned at present, rather less than four dollars goes to the sterling—a depreciation of 22½ par cent. —and, taking our own depreciated stock, and comparing it with nations east of us, what is the position to-day? On our own depreciated standard to-day there is a drop of about 40 per cent. —38 francs to our own sovereign; 47 to 50 lira in Italy—a drop of about 50 per cent.; and as to Germany, no one really knows what it is, but, so far as the quotation goes, I think to-day it is something between 170 and 180 marks to our sovereign—a depreciation of about 90 per cent. As to Austria and Russia, of course you cannot get any reliable quotation of exchange at all. America is assisting us still, and she is also assisting the nations of Europe, but the real posi-
tion is that each day we are getting deeper into debt to the United States, and all the nations of Europe are getting deeper into debt to us.
I am not one of those who cares to cry stinking fish about my own country at all, and I might say, so far as I have been able to look at the figures, that so far as the balance between imports and exports is concerned, our position is incomparably better than any other nation in Europe. Taking the first nine months of this year, we had about £1,167,000,000 worth of imports and about £540,000,000 of exports, with about £98,000,000 of re-exports, leaving a balance, supposing the year had concluded at that rate, of somewhere about £700,000,000. We have, of course, something to set off against that. Our investments abroad bring in about £150,000,000, and for other services—banks, and things of that kind—I think it would be safe to reckon about £50.000,000. But then comes in the great sheet-anchor of this country in peace and war, the Mercantile Marine, and I do not think the estimate would be veryfar off if I said there would be paid to this country very little short of £400,000,000 this year for freight service rendered to other countries. If it is more, so much the better. That leaves us with not very much more than £100,000,000 to make up so far as our foreign trade is concerned. Of course, we all know that imports are material and visible goods for services rendered. That is the way business is done. But the real trouble is this. So far as we are concerned, looking at it, as one is entitled to do, from selfish interests, though our own interests are not always selfish, it is the duty which we owe to ourselves, and, indeed, to those whom we want to help. Of course, it is no use, if you arc trying to rescue a drowning man, to be dragged in with him. It is of the highest importance that you should keep yourself on the bank, if you are going to help him at all. Of course I am assuming that you have got the rope round him.
One thing dominates the situation in Europe, and that is hunger, the greatest cause of all the political ills from which mankind has ever suffered. It is the parent of rebellion, and all social unrest, and of the main troubles in Europe today. There was a very remarkable letter which appeared in the "Times" of yesterday, I think it was, signed by eminent men of every class and grade of society,
appealing to this country to do what it could to save the existence of millions of people in Central Europe. If something is not done, when the crash comes a lot of things will go down with it. It is not a sentimental business alone, although, of course, that ought to have its weight, but it is an appeal to duty of the highest importance if we wish to save Europe from the whirlpool in which Russia is swirling to-day. I do not know what can be done, but something on those lines, I am happy to think, has already been started, and I would urge in support of that appeal again what I have already said. It is not merely philanthropy and sentiment; it is the instinct of self-preservation in ourselves and others, and I hope and believe the Government is well aware of the situation, and I would say, for high state reasons of a national and an international character, they ought to take all available steps to support that appeal, backed as it was in the way I have just indicated. For what my opinion may be worth, I have come to the conclusion that it may be necessary in order to get these matters on their true basis, that there should be international co-operation of a financial kind, to provide the necessary credit. We cannot do it ourselves. So far as I am concerned, let that be quite understood. The burden which we are carrying is an enormous one. I do not think we realise how great it is, or it would be crushing. But there are other countries who might bear their fair share or the burden. Where are the Nationals from those countries oppressed by famine, pestilence, and the after-horrors of war? Many millions of them are in the United States; millions of them are in the. Argentine, in countries which, all honour to them for whatever part they played in the War, have not been nearly so hard hit as we have. I think, too, the call of race should meet with some response in these matters. We all know and constantly hear that you cannot destroy nationality. That appeal I think ought to find a very hearty response from those people, in order that they may play their part, not only to save the nations from which they have sprung, but to save a large part of civilisation as well.
I would like to say a word on the question of the United States and the League of Nations. I think it is a great mistake on our part to be too impatient with the
United States because of the hesitation. and the delay which has taken place in the signing of the Treaty. We must remember what the traditions of the United States are with regard to interference and intervention in European affairs. There are taught, I believe, in all the primary schools of America selected portions of the last message of Washington, and when you remember that such portions have been taught to generations for the last fifty, sixty, or seventy years, that is the way in which a national tradition is created, and in which a national atmosphere becomes existent, and is extraordinarily difficult to fight against when you wish to create an entirely new situation. One or two of these sentences I have here before me. This is what Washington said to his people:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation.
He goes on to say:
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour, or caprice?
Many things have happened since those words were written, but the tradition has remained, and we must bear that in mind when we consider what is happening in the United States to-day. Those who have determined—and I believe they will be successful—to bring America into line with the signatories, at any rate, of all the substantial parts of the Treaty, have that to fight against as well as their own domesticities in their political contest with which we may be sympathetic while not perhaps completely understanding. Those are the difficulties with which those in America who are striving to bring America into line on this great matter are faced. I believe the United States will come clean through in the end. I strongly believe so, but time is going on, and the wheels of her chariot sadly tarry. The League of Nations very largely depends for its enforcement—I would rather say its enthronement—amongst the peoples of the world on that great nation joining with us in the duty which we have undertaken. But I would say this to the Prime Minister: Whether the United States come in or not, we must go on. What is the alternative? Doubt, hesitation, fear, resulting only in
a resort to armed force once again for the protection of the public rights of those who are not strong enough to defend themselves. If this thing is allowed to drift—and there is considerable danger of it doing so—the inevitable tendency of all the governing men in Europe will be to slip back again into the terrible days of preparation for war. Let me say this: While we have won a victory over Germany, Germany has won in the methods of war. What is happening? Such fighting as is going on to-day. We have adopted gas, and all the horrors of bombing from the air. Germany is victorious in the methods of warfare. We shall once again plunge into this horror, this nightmare of statesmanship, and of the peoples, unless something better takes its place. There is no half-way house between the League of Nations and a return to militarism. I urge upon the Prime Minister, who in the past has often allied himself with difficult causes, again to gird up his loins, and his courage, and to stand up in this great opportunity, not only for this nation, but for the world, and to work for a better state of things.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: No one who is interested in foreign affairs, and its difficulties, will consider that the present occasion is less difficult than any previous occasion on which we have discussed these matters. But there are certain aspects of the international position which, I think, it is right should be mentioned, and if the Government can give us any information and enlightenment upon them, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the country, so far as my experience of it is concerned, will be grateful, for it is deeply interested it the subject. I have been struck, in going about the country—and I have been shout a good deal lately—with the profound and moving interest which all classes of the community feel in the foreign relations of this country at the present time. In that respect, I am quite sure the War has made a most profound difference in the attitude and thought of our people. I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down when he presses very strongly that Peace should be finally ratified as soon as possible. Nothing would do more to relieve the tension in Europe than that we were really done with the War. I do not want to refer to or discuss recent delays which have taken place. We all know they were bound up with the negotiations with Germany. It would be
very improper, since those negotiations are not yet complete, to express any opinion upon them. But I, perhaps, may, without indiscretion, be allowed to go so far as this: to point out to my right hon. Friend and the Government that a revolution in Germany cannot possibly be of any service to us and may be destructive in the end. I am glad my right hon. Friend agrees with that. It is quite evident that the destruction of the present German Government would necessarily result in one of three things—either complete anarchy, or a much more extreme Left Government—a Sparticist Government—or a military reaction with a military autocracy. None of these three results can possibly be in our interest, and I am glad that here again my right hon. Friend takes the same view. I am sure, therefore, in all the negotiations and discussions on the subject with our Allies the Government will bear in mind that central cardinal fact.
As to Turkey, I want to say a word or two. There is very considerable anxiety no doubt in considerable classes of the community about Turkey. The feeling is very deep on the Turkish question—and rightly so. The public have been very tremendously stirred by the Armenian massacres, by the cruelties in Syria, and by the terrific hardships and miseries which various parts of the population in Chaldea and Syria have undergone in consequence of the misgovernment of the past, and the disasters of the present War. So many people look with interest at this question that it is quite right to speak freely about it. The campaign winch has apparently been taking place in the French Press can only be described as Turkophile. I do not want to go into details, but if it is a fact that this is in any considerable degree the opinion in France it is only right for someone to say that it has no echo or counterpart in England. I quite recognise there are great difficulties—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred to at Question Time—and I do not desire to dogmatise about Constantinople, which is a very difficult and complicated question. But speaking for myself, I may say that I shall be very profoundly and deeply disappointed to put it very mildly—if Turkish dominion in Constantinople is allowed to remain. I believe it would be a disaster. I believe it would be treated by the worst elements of the Turks as a great and dramatic victory
over the Powers of Europe. Constantinople, in some respects, is a most difficult and complicated question. In this and similar matters we do want to be quite thoroughly assured of it that the Government stands perfectly firm by the declaration—the repeated declaration—I have copies of it here, but it is quite unnecessary to remind my right hon. Friend, as I am sure he will not seek to deny it—the repeated declaration that the Turkish government of any sort, or in any form or degree, over subject and alien races must not be allowed to remain. We cannot have in any way the old device of Turkish government for Armenia with certain guarantees, or anything of that kind. That will not meet the present situation. We must get rid of Turkish government over other races once and for all. I trust that that which up to very recently was the policy of the Government is still the policy of the Government. I trust my right hon. Friend will be able to say some reassuring words to the many peoples who look for a declaration upon the subject.
May I ask here why there has been this very prolonged delay in dealing with the matter? Delay does not make it easier to deal with. I cannot help thinking that even the most difficult questions would have been much easier to deal with a year ago, or even nine months ago; that the question of Constantinople itself would have been easier, though it is a complicated question. I do not think it really is a question about which the Government or the Allies should have failed to make up their minds for so long a time. There are other questions which are complicated, too. The future of Syria, the exact form of government for Armenia; which Power is to be entrusted with the trusteeship of this part of the Turkish Empire, and what Power entrusted with that part. Ali these are difficult and complicated questions. But they need not have delayed the Turkish Treaty for one hour. There was nothing to prevent once and for all settling the question of Constantinople and Anatolia; nothing to prevent the signing of a Treaty with Turkey by which Turkey should resign all control over the provinces which it was determined she was no longer fit to be trusted with. The question as to how they were to be dealt with could have been left over as a matter to be discussed between the Allies and Associated Governments. I have never thought that the difficulty as to an American mandate
for Armenia should have prevented the Governments, once and for from ejecting Turkey from Armenia; and I shall be very glad if my right hon. Friend can give us some explanation as to why this very prolonged delay has taken place, and give us some hope that the delay is near its termination.
Take the delay in Austria. We cannot help feeling that the delay there has been an unfortunate matter. My right hon. Friend spoke, and quite rightly spoke, of the acute economic position in Austria, and indeed in many other parts of Central Europe. I believe that the Governments are absolutely agreed as to the terrible danger that threatens not only the women and children of Austria, but time peace and good government of the whole of Central Europe in consequence of that situation. The situation has been acute for months past. I myself came over from Paris, I think it was in April, and I made a speech to this House in which I called attention to the very acute economic position in Central Europe. I want to ask my right hon. Friend for an explanation as to what exactly has been done to relieve this situation? What plans have been made? I know food has been put in; but it is merely throwing away money, and it is not of much use merely shovelling food into the country if you do not do more than that. We cannot go on permanently feeding these peoples. You must set them on their legs again, so that they will be able to feed themselves. You must get the economic machine going. That is essential. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] My hon. and gallant Friend cheers as if I had said something extraordinary—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Germany, too!

5.0 P.M.

Lord R. CECIL: Yes, certainly; set up the whole—and Russia! But you cannot afford to leave any of these countries permanently in their present condition. What are the Government doing in that respect? What are their anticipations, and what do they think will happen? I am bound to say that, as far as I know the terms of the Treaty with Austria, I cannot help feeling that the reparation terms were almost insane in the economic position which Austria occupies. I have never been an admirer of the reparation terms with Germany, but, ns applied to Austria, I think they were utterly indefensible.
What sense is there in the case of a people absolutely bankrupt, with no hope or chance of putting itself on its legs again, of placing upon them obligations and financial conditions which are impossible for them to carry out. I have never been able to understand the sense of such a provision as far as Austria is concerned, and some of the other propositions in regard to Austria seem difficult to defend.
I cannot conceive why the Southern Tyrol should have been handed from Austria to Italy. There may have been extreme difficulties in the matter. Consider for a moment What the Southern Tyrol really is. It is almost the most definitely Austro-German part of the whole of Austria. It is the birthplace of Andreas Hofer, who maintained a desperate and heroic struggle against Napoleon to maintain the independence of his country. It has not the slightest connection economically, politically, or racial, and yet you are taking this district and handing it over to Italy. You so diminish the size of Austria as to make it almost impossible for the new Austrian State to remain permanently an independent State. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will go into those questions now, but I deem it right to snake that statement as an additional reason why we should take up this question of re-establishing the economic position in Europe in come thorough and effective form.
I am not going to say anything about Russia beyond this. My right hon. Friend made a reference to it, and I shall not say anything more upon this point, except that I feel that there are very grave difficulties in opening negotiations with the Soviet Governments. I have always felt that there are difficulties which my hon. Friends feel more strongly than I do, but quite apart from that, the uncertainty of its existence, the difficulty of knowing how far its authority is really established, the impossibility at present of proceeding on any principle upon which we have hitherto gone, all this makes very great difficulties in regard to negotiations. I do not myself see any possibility of a solution of the Russian question unless it can be taken up and dealt with by the League of Nations. It is eminently a matter which ought to be dealt with not by one nation or by one group of nations, but by all the nations as a whole to make whatever settlement they think right, and probably they
would precede any such settlement by a really impartial examination into the condition of affairs in that country.
All this makes, in my judgment, not an. argument against the establishment of the League of Nations, as some people seem to think, but a strong argument in its favour. I am bound to say to my right hon. Friend, and I should not be honest and candid if I did not, that I am, I will not say suspicious, but really uneasy as to the attitude of the Government on this question. You cannot get over the fact that there are some members of the Government who are almost openly hostile this question. There is the Secretary for-War, for example, who never refers to it in public except slightingly. Perhaps the Prime Minister is more fortunate than I am in this respect, but I could not say that anything the right hon. Gentleman says in private contradicts what lie sags in public in that respect. When you come to acts, I see very little sign in the policy of the Government of their having accepted, exan imo, the real spirit of the League, and I see very little signs of it in the Estimates.
I have the highest possible respect for Monsieur Clemenceau and we were delighted that he came to visit us, but the atmosphere that surrounded the negotiations between him and the Government were entirely of a war character, and there was nothing of the new spirit about them. It was a private conversation, the details of which have not been given to us, between two Powers settling, we understand, many important considerations without consulting anybody else. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what preparations have been actually made by the Government for taking their part in the League of Nations? I know that in France great preparations have been made. Departmental organisations have been established to make it easier for them to take. their place. I want to know have any such steps been taken here? I want to ask the Government—no one would be more-pleased than I should if the Prime Minister can give me a real hearty reply—are the Government going into the League intending to make it a success? Are they really going to put their last sixpence into the League and push it forward with all the strength and power of this country?
It is said that great difficulties have been caused by the action taken by the United States, and I do not want to say a word about that. It is not for me or for any of
us to criticise the action which the United States may think it right to take. If it be true that they are not so much in favour of the League as is represented, and that they are not going to take their part, that does not make it any less the duty and interest of others to take part in the negotiations, but it makes it all the more necessary. We must work harder if we are not to have the assistance of our friends over the sea. It is not a question of whether you will say this or that. It is a matter of absolute necessity for civilisation. I read this morning a speech delivered by Sir Lewis Jackson, describing what is likely to take place in the next war. I should like to see that speech in the hands of every doubter about the League of Nations. As far as my judgment goes, it is in no way exaggerated. The next war, if it takes place on anything like the footing of the last, will be as much more horrible as the War we have just concluded was more horrible than any which preceded it. It means the wholesale destruction of all our city populations and it means an incalculable waste of material and work. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the situation in Europe is very critical. I will put it even higher. I would say that it is so menacing in some respects that in my darker moments I have doubts whether, we shall get through, but I hope I am wrong in this respect. I accept all that my right hon. Friend and others have said about the comparative possibilities of this country, but nevertheless the economic situation is intensely serious. If we had bad luck or a convulsion of nature, or some fresh disturbance of the peace I do not think there is anybody on that Bench who in their heart of hearts would be prepared to answer for the consequences. If that has been the result of the last War, what will be the result of the future war It will not be a question of victory in the future. It will not matter who wins, for everybody will be destroyed. That is the thing we have to realise. Alliances and armaments will be no protection, because even if you win you will have another war on a greater scale than the last which will destroy the whole of civilisation. Under these circumstances I hope my right hon. Friend will really be able to make a reassuring statement on this question, and I trust that the policy of the Government will show that that statement is not merely words.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I intend to confine my remarks to a much less ambitious limit than the Noble Lord who has just spoken. There are only one or two comparatively minor points to which I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister and the House. Referring to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I notice and I entirely agree with it, that he laid great stress upon the complete emancipation of the races that have been hitherto under Turkish rule in Asia Minor. I do not believe there is anyone in the House who does not cordially agree that as a result of this War, and the settlement of it those races should be made comparatively free from the domination of the Turk. I should like my right hon. Friend opposite to have pledged himself and those whom he represents on this matter, and I wish he had given us some indication of his view of what can be done to make that emancipation effective. It is all very well to sign a Treaty, as we shall do with the Turkish Empire, saying that these various races in Asia Minor are no longer to be under Turkish control, but that will not get rid of the fact that there are Turks and Kurds and other savage people scattered about all over the country. One wants to know what. effective safeguard we have to offer to these people when we have effected their emancipation. I remember attending one of the largest demonstrations that I ever saw in Trafalgar Square many years ago when there was a popular demand that we should go to the rescue of the Armenians. A deputation was sent to the illustrious father of my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil), urging him to go to the rescue of the Armenians, and, if I remember rightly, Lord Salisbury replied that the British Navy was not prepared to go over the top of the Caucasus. Has the right lion. Gentleman formed any clear idea whether we are to have an Army of Occupation of our own, of America, or of the French, or what means are to be taken for safeguarding these people? My own impression and fear is that if anything of the sort were done we should immediately have protests from various quarters in this House against new commitments. We should have the same things said that are now being said with regard to the support given to our friends in Russia and in Asia Minor, and I am not at all sure that the Government would have any very effective reply. Therefore, it is not less important
to have clearly in our minds how the thing is to be done when the paper emancipation has been carried out, than to lay stress in this House upon the mere policy of carrying out the Treaty.
The right hon. Gentleman referred—and quite rightly referred—to the distress of these people in Asia Minor at the present time. I should like to associate myself with the protest that he made as to the way in which some of these subjects are dealt with at Question Time in this House. I must say that in some respects we have not been very well treated by the Foreign Office. I make no sort of complaint against my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary (Mr. Harmsworth). He is always courteous and as helpful as he can possibly be, and we all recognise that as the Secretary of State is in another place he has a very special responsibility which makes it difficult for him, perhaps, to assume as much initiative as he would like to do from time to time. That, however, does not get over the fact, emphasised by the Leader of the Liberal Opposition, that we are put off from time to time with every sort of evasion when we try to get information. I put a question only yesterday in this House with regard to one of these peoples in Asia Minor. I addressed my question to the Foreign Office, because I believed, and I still believe, that the Foreign Office was the Department concerned. It was a question regarding the Chaldean Christians in Asia Minor. How was my question treated? I was told that it was a matter for the India Office. The Secretary of State for India had been in the House a few minutes before, but the question was answered by one of the Junior Whips. It was on the eve of a Debate in this House on foreign affairs, and I should have thought that it was natural to assume, when a Member asked for information on a question of this sort on the eve of a foreign Debate, that it was for the bonâ-fide purpose of informing his mind in order that he might take part in the discussion. The question was handed over to the India Office, which I believe has nothing whatever to do with it, and then it was answered by a Junior Whip, who, of course, was not in a position to give any information whatever in reply to supplementary questions. I asked about the condition of the Chaldean Christians in Asia Minor, and whether the Government had any scheme for assisting them, and, if not, whether they
would be prepared to give any facility to a private organisation having the same-aim. The Junior Whip, to whom the question was handed by second hand, told us:
I understand that only a minority of the Christian community of Chaldeans live within the area of Mesopotamia under British occupation, and I have no information leading me co think that their condition is such as is suggested by my hon. Friend, but I am making special inquiries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1919, 406.]
What does that mean? I do not know whether it is the Foreign Office or the India Office, but at all events the Office which thinks it is concerned has no information upon the subject. They have no excuse for having no information, because this very interesting though small people have a representative in this country at the present moment, and I certainly understood that that representative had been in communication with the Government. He was quite prepared, I am certain, to give information to the Government, and I can hardly imagine that there was any justification for the Government, on the day before a Debate on foreign policy, not informing themselves, so that they were actually compelled to say that they understood, though they could not speak with certainty, something or other with regard to one part of the question, and that they had no information, but were making special inquiries, with regard to the other part. If the importance and interest of these matters goes by mere quantity, I quite agree that these people are not worth considering, but that is not the true test of 'whether a people deserve the support arid encouragement of the British Government and the British nation. These Chaldean Christians are a very small people, but they are one of the most ancient Christian populations in the world, and they have this distinction, which gives them a very special claim upon our regard, that they are, I believe, the only people in that part of the country who have actually fought as Allies on our side.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: No.

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. Friend corrects me, but these Chaldeans did supply a contingent which, in the course of one of our expeditions—I think the expedition up to the Caspian Sea—rendered most valuable service. Therefore, when we are talking, as we have been talking, on a large-scale about economic relief—I quite agree
with my Noble Friend that it is of the greatest possible importance to relieve the terrible economic distress prevailing every where—when we ate talking in millions of sending relief to our late, and, indeed, our present enemies, I do believe that this small, ancient, interesting Christian people, who have thrown themselves upon our side and are now left to the tender mercies of their economic distress and of their secular enemies, are worthy of some effort being made by our Government and our people to save them from extinction, for it is nothing less than that with which they are faced owing to having no food to meet their present necessities. I turn to another point, and here, again, I must complain of the way in which the Foreign Office—not my hon. Friend, who is only the mouthpiece of the Foreign Office—have dealt with my question and the questions of other hon. Members. I put some questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to-day on the subject of Montenegro, and he replied by saying he was sure that I would agree with him that as the matter was now before the Council in Paris he ought not to say anything about it. I will not have the presumption to judge him in that matter. I will not venture either to agree or disagree with him, but I gather from his answer that I am not likely to get much information to-day. I will not complain of that. During the War I asked questions upon this and other subjects, and, while the War lasted, I never on any occasion failed to respond to any request that I should withdraw my question. Therefore, I do not think that the Government will say that I have been trying to make mischief.

The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear!

Mr. Mc NEILL: Under present circumstances, when we are well past the War, when the actual fighting is over, although it may be difficult, I agree, for the Government to conduct their operations, as my right hon. Friend opposite suggested, with their cards on the table and the blinds up, I do think that more information might be given upon some of these matters, and that my right. hon. Friend and the Government really exaggerate the embarrassment that they would suffer if they let the world know a little more what they are doing. I want, at all events, to let my right hon. Friend and the House know what some of us think
about this question of Montenegro. I must express my surprise that it has not attracted more interest and attention in this House, and I am particularly surprised that my right hon. Friend (Sir D Maclean) and those who arrogate to themselves in a special degree the Liberal traditions have not shown the slightest interest in this little country which won the particular enconiums of Gladstone and Tennyson and people of that sort. Mr. Gladstone once called it "immortal Montenegro." Throughout this War we have seen this country slighted, abused, and I think oppressed, with the connivance, I cannot call it less, of our own Government, and not one word of protest has come from the leaders of those who call themselves Liberals in this House. I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that there is a mystery of Montenegro. I gather from what he has told us that he is not going to dissolve that mystery to-day, but let him understand that there is a mystery. Everyone will remember the great. Admiration with which we all heard in the very first few days of war that this minute little country had gallantly thrown themselves on the side of the Allies and was valiantly fighting against the Austrian enemy. That was the first thing that we heard, and it called forth our unbounded admiration for this little country. If there had been no mystery and nothing bad happened, one would have expected that in the ordinary course that little country would have been singled out among the Allies for encouragement, support, praise, and congratulation throughout, and that every possible honour out of all proportion to their size and importance would have been done to Montenegro as a token of the admiration we felt for them. The fact is that throughout the War, whether on the anniversary of the commencement of the War, or on the anniversaries of victories, or on occasions when formal ceremonial messages of congratulation have been sent by the heads of Governments to each other, or when our own gracious Sovereign sent a telegram of congratulation to every conceivable ruler—Siam, Argentine, and everywhere that an Ally was to be found—not once has any message been sent to Montenegro. That is a mystery. Let me tell the House a second fact. Throughout the War Montenegro was not allowed to have a formal diplomatic representative in London. She applied for it, and I myself had the assur-
ance to ask in this House why she was not allowed to have a formal representative in this country. It could not have done any harm to anybody, and at all events it would have been a mark of respect and encouragement. I was told in one of those evasive answers which have been given by the Foreign Office that His Majesty's Government considered that Montenegro was quite sufficiently represented by an official in the Embassy in Paris.

The PRIME MINISTER: What was the date of that?

Mr. McNEILL: I should think it was certainly two years ago. It may have been even earlier, but I do not think that anyone representing the Foreign Office will claim that they did not know that the Montenegrin Government desired to be represented in this country. Let me take a still more flagrant example. Why has Montenegro not been represented at the Peace Conference? Let me give an illustration of the Foreign Office methods of answering questions. I have put a question over and over again on this subject, and the last time was on 24th November, when I asked why Montenegro was not represented at the Peace Conference. This is the answer given by the Foreign Office:
As previously stated in this House, the representation of Montenegro was accepted by the Peace Conference in principle; but, as Montenegro is not adjacent to Austria, it was not necessary for the Treaty of Peace with Austria to be signed by a Montenegro representative. The people of Montenegro are, of course, directly concerned with the settlement of the peninsula, and the decision has been left open as to how their representative should he chosen.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1919, col. l435, Vol. 121.]
My question was why they were not represented at. the Peace Conference, yet I have been told only within the last week or two that although their representation was accepted in principle it had been held over as to how their representatives should be chosen. The idea that because Montenegro is not. adjacent to Austria, she should not be asked to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria, it is really difficult to describe in any other way than as a cock-and-bull story. I have two papers in my pocket issued from the Vote Office only yesterday, one of them is an agreement between the Allied and Associated Powers with regard to Italian reparation, and the other is with regard to the cost of the troops used for the liberation of territories
composing the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The parties to the latter agreement include the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, Cuba, France, Greece, Italy, Nicaragua, Panama, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, the Croats, Siam, and the Czecho-Slovak States. Why was Montenegro not allowed to come in with Panama? Are Panama and Nicaragua adjacent to Austria? Can my right hon. Friend give any reason whatever to explain the mystery which underlies our whole dealing with Montenegro, and why this injustice has been inflicted upon this gallant little Ally? What is the mystery?
It is this. At the very beginning of the War a story was put about that the Montenegrins, or their Government, had been guilty of treachery to the Allies. It was said that even the King himself had entered into relations with the enemy, and it was suggested that an important military position had been given up by treachery. From first to last that story has been at the bottom of the whole treatment which has been meted out to Montenegro by the Allied and Associated Powers, and by His Majesty's Government. What I say is this. If there is or if there was any truth in that statement with regard to the King of Montenegro and his Government, why has the evidence never been produced to prove it? I do not believe myself there is the slightest truth in it.
From first to last there has been an aggressive, Imperialistic, filibustering policy on the part of Serbia. At an early stage of the War it was given out in this country that the Serbian Army had invaded the territories of Austria and had penetrated as far as Sarajevo. That story emanated from Serbia, but, as a matter of fact, there was not one Serbian soldier in that force. It was a Montenegrin force. The Serbians have got hold of the sources of information. They have spent hundred and thousands of pounds, if not millions, in propaganda work, and they have poisoned, I believe, the springs of information that not merely reach the public throughout Europe, but those which influence the conduct of my right hon. Friend and those associated with him in Paris. That I believe to be the truth of the ease, and I say it is not fair treatment. Either the King and the Government of Montenegro are guilty or they are not guilty. They have been officially recognised. They were recog-
nised only the other day, for when the King of Montenegro left Paris all the ordinary formal ceremonial was gone through at his departure. The King having been recognised, as he has been, he should be treated as innocent. If these stories have been put about and thus acted upon why have they not been substantiated I would urgently impress upon my right hon. Friend that it is not fair to act all through as if these stories, which have emanated entirely from interested Serbian sources, were information upon which it was right to proceed.
I was told by my right hon. Friend only the other day that one of the difficulties of the situation was that the Montenegrins are divided amongst themselves. How could they be otherwise? When the enemy retired from their country they were not left free. When the tide of invasion retired from Serbia the Serbian Government was restored and the country set on its feet again. But when the enemy retired from Montenegro what happened was that, if possible, a worse enemy took its place, that worse enemy being her own Ally. Although in the early days of the War the Montenegrins fought so gallantly —and there is no truth in the story that they did not; they lost:50 per cent. of their effectives and their military forces by covering the retreat of the Serbians and saved the remnant of the Serbian Army—yet their country has been devastated not by an enemy as was Belgium, Serbia, or Poland, but by the country they themselves saved and a country to which they have been from the first a gallant and loyal Ally. There, again, I say, having regard to these facts, it becomes perfectly unintelligible how it is that the Great Powers should in this way have played into the hands of those filibustering Serbians.
The Government of Montenegro has been kept in exile. Its King and its Ministers have been detained in Paris. Their country has been occupied by Serbian troops. Is it wonderful, then, that the Montenegrins are divided? If you had restored their King or their Government as soon as possible, the differences in opinion, which are natural enough and the like of which are to be found everywhere else, would have settled themselves. If the minority of the people had wanted a change of government they would have been in a position to get it. In the same way, if the majority had wanted to maintain the present Government they could
have done so. But, instead of that, their country has been occupied by a foreign army and there has been no possibility of arriving with any real certainty at the feelings of the people and of the nation. What I have been pressing by these questions from time to-time, and what I desire to press upon the Government now, is simply this: That the Montenegrins should be given the power and the right to decide for themselves their own future. Nobody asks anything more for them than that. The Serbian policy, as we know, is annexation. They have been putting it about through their propaganda that the majority of the Moritenegrin people desire incorporation with Serbia. It may be so. On the other hand, it is said with quite as much assurance that that is not at all the case, and that if a free vote could be taken it would be seen that tile Montenegrin desire to maintain their independence. I can very well imagine, having regard to the splendid history of that little country, the only country in the Balkan Peninsula which has succeeded in maintaining its independence all these years against Turkey—I can imagine that if they desire to go into a large Jugo-Slav State they would prefer to go in under some federal system which would preserve their own independence rather than under a union which would obliterate all their past history.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that this question is extremely difficult because we are practically without information. But the Government have plenty of information. They sent one of their emissaries to Montenegro to examine the facts for himself and to report to them what he believed to be the wish of the people and the impressions which he gathered as to the allegations which have been made. Count de Salis sent his Report to this country, and yet the Government has never consented to produce it, or to let this House or the country know anything about it! What is the reason for that? The only reason which has any plausibility at all is this. I was told by the Under-Secretary that if the Government produced Count de Salis' Report it would be dangerous for some who had given him information. That means, of course, that the Report was an entire exposure of Serbian intrigue and oppression in that country, and, therefore, if names were mentioned and published, it would bring down upon those people the wrath of the Serbian authorities in Montenegro. I imme-
diately suggested to my hon. Friend that if that were so it was no reason whatever for not publishing the Report and omitting the names, leaving blanks in their place. There are precedents for that. There is the precedent of the Bryce Report on the German atrocities in Belgium, and there must be many other precedents; there can be no possible reason why, with perfect safety to those who gave information to Count de Salis, that Report should not be issued. The refusal of the Government to make the facts known is continuing the mystery, and I am afraid it will be continued so long that, before the public opinion grasps what is being done, the Serbians will have made a fait accompli of the annexation of Montenegro, and when the Government at long last think it safe to give the information to the House and to the public we shall simply be told "it is very unfortunate, but it is too late now; it is all past history." Therefore, I take this opportunity to strongly protest, first, against the way in which this matter has been treated in questions and answers in this House for the last few years, and, secondly, at the continued refusal of the Government, when even at this time I do not believe it would cause any embarrassment, to make, known the facts communicated by their agent as to the opinion the Montenegrin people on the way they have been treated.

Mr. CLYNES: The closing observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down indicate the growing indignation at what might be termed the sustained secrecy of the Government on matters which certainly ought to be more open. Although he stated his views in very restrained language, his protest is, I think, none the less weighty, and should evoke from the Government sonic frank statement as to why they have acted in the way he has described. I rise to address to the Government a few words in order to indicate the indignation felt by hon. Members with whom I act on this side of the House in regard to the line of policy pursued by the Government in connection with matters which should be the subject of common knowledge. What used to be described as foreign politics are not as foreign to the masses of the people of this country now as they were years ago. Those millions of men who went to foreign lands, largely because the trend of foreign politics in previous years dragged them there, have come back retaining an interest in
both home and foreign politics far deeper than they ever had before. For that reason, if for no other, the Government should meet this increasing hunger for information on the real facts of the case. In the earlier stages of the almost daily conferences in France following the conclusion of the War, one could understand the cause for a great deal of secrecy. But the effects of this continued secrecy on what might be called our peace of mind, and on the general condition in Europe, are extremely serious, and might very well be reduced by taking the country more into the confidence of the Government.
We are, by the measures pursued by the Government, kept very largely as yet in the realm of war thought. The sooner we escape from that line of thought into the more wholesome mode of looking in terms of peace at the problems we have to handle, the better, I am sure, will it be for all. The Prime Minister takes the lead in appealing to this country, and to all its parties and classes, for unity. I think the Coalition Government bases its main ease for its continued existence upon the need for unity—unity of classes for a unity of purpose. I say that there can be no unity without confidence, and there can be no confidence without knowledge; that it is essential, in order to create a sense of nation and a unity of purpose, that all classes of the people shall be taken more fully into the confidence of the Government. We on this side of the House are expected to feel some sense of responsibility about what we say, either because of any authority we may have at the moment, or any authority we may think we may hereafter acquire. But how can we do justice to that sense of responsibility if we are kept in ignorance—if all that we know about these foreign relationships has to be gathered from enterprising correspondents, whose statements, when revealed, are usually denied if they are made the subject of question? It is in the national interest, if not in the interest of a man or a party for the time being, that we should at once be ushered into that period of more open and frank dealing which we were told would be established as one result of the War. The meetings which are held in all parts of the country, and organised by all parties, at this time of day, prove to us bow deeply interested the people are in the commitments into which the Government
may enter from time to time, because of the bearing of those commitments upon our future life, happiness and destiny. We on this side, as did other Members of this House, towards the close of the negotiations which concluded the Treaty, thought we were not being justly treated as a Parliament in regard to the settlements and many features of the Treaty that were reached in France practically behind closed doors. Reference has been made to the meetings recently held in this country—indeed, held in Downing Street —within the last few days; and here we are appealing for information. We are supposed to live in a democratic age; we are supposed to be the governing factor in the affairs of this country. The power of Parliament is said to be supreme, and yet, behind all those words, there is the fact that a few men are making arrangements in private which no doubt they will require us hereafter submissively to confirm as an active duty. That is not the open diplomacy that was promised to us, and we would like to know really what has happened during these very important conferences. This information ought not to be given, because it is extracted by question and answer, or, in reply to a protest, but readily, and as a right, to Parliament, and as the need of the country. The view of those with whom I act on this side of the House is that it is essential in all these matters that we should know how far we are being carried, and that we should not on any sentimental ground, or for any material reason, be led into partnership in regard to these very great obligations without understanding beforehand the value of them, and the responsibilities which they carry.
I want to avoid saying any one word which would appear to be a reflection upon our great neighbour and Ally, France. We are too near the agony of that country, and her suffering in every form and manner, to indulge in a single word of criticism as to the part which she thinks it still needful to pursue to ensure her future safety against an aggressor. But I do venture to say that, like ourselves, France will be obliged to think as much in terms of the world's needs as in terms of the needs of France alone. Therefore, while recognising the part which she has played in the world's history, and the supreme need which fell upon her to protect herself against the
aggressions of a more powerful neighbour, we do say that this War has changed a very great deal, and that men cannot look at these questions of alliances and foreign relationships in the sense in which Frenchmen naturally were obliged to look, and continue to look, at them after the events of 1870. The events which followed August, 1914, are the events which must shape the outlook and attitude of all free peoples, at any rate in regard to these commitments. I think it was the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) who referred to the effect upon the world of any tendency in Germany towards revolution. One might add, to what he has said under that head, a reference to the situation in France itself. It is far from being absolutely calm and secure. The elections there, as here, might lead observers to wrong conclusions. I think it may be said that the representation secured for what might be termed the Socialist-Bolshevik body of opinion in France is far out of proportion to the number of voters. I have not the figures in my mind, but certainly a very considerable number of electors in France voted for the candidates who would be classed as extreme or revolutionary, and those who observe events in that country can see that this tendency towards the development of a Bolshevik - Socialist body of opinion exists to a very considerable degree in Germany as well as in France. In France the Majority Socialists, who stood towards their country in that time of war in the same relation in which we stood towards our country here, found themselves, as the War went on, transformed from a majority to a minority of their party. Therefore, in both those countries we have all the elements of prospective disturbance of the most alarming and serious kind.
6.0 P.M.
Frankly, for myself, I say I am wholly discontented and dissatisfied with the existing social and industrial order, and I believe it must be modified in a very material degree before we can or ought to expect anything like absolute contentment and restfulness on the part of the masses of the people. But I want changes to come as the result of the intellectual acceptance of the doctrines as we propose them, as the result rather of conversion than of coercion. Bolshevists in either of the countries to which I have referred, as in the case of Russia, appear to place their faith in the working class of those
countries acquiring sufficient power and authority, based, as it must be, upon the application of military force or of some kind of organised violence, in order that they may dominate the affairs and destiny of their country as a class. Just as assailed and opposed the dominion of class when it has been exercised by a wealthy class in this country, I would equally resist class tyranny or class law when it is proposed to exert it on behalf of the working class of this country. You cannot seek to secure the welfare and prosperity of the nation as a whole by enthroning a class in the seat of government, as a class right and as a privilege, without greatly endangering the prosperity of the whole of the people of every class. The position of the Bolshevik, and of the more extreme form of Socialist, who does not seek the success of his country and its government through constitutional changes, is both in Germany and in France, extremely serious, and that has a bearing upon the conduct of the Government of this country in relation to these arrangements in which it has entered. Knowledge, therefore, can do us no harm. The publication by the Bolshevists in Russia of all those secrets which have been locked for years under the key of the Czar certainly did no harm to the cause of progress. Individuals might have squirmed and suffered, as no doubt they did, but the more the Government, especially in a country deemed to be freely governed, takes the people into its confidence, the better it will be for the true interests of the whole of the nation. I suggest under this head, in regard to Russia, that in spite of, and perhaps even because of, the progress which the Bolshevists are making against the military forces there is an increasing need for the speedy establishment of diplomatic relations and an attitude of official peace towards that country. The fact that they are at war with themselves to a considerable extent internally does not justify the statement made by the Prime Minister the other day, when he said, "Let them make peace among themselves." Russia is a very considerable country, with which we had before the War very extensive trade relations. The fact that we are unable completely to separate ourselves from anything Russia may be doing is proved by the conferences between Litvinoff and my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Grady). Under this
head we are entitled to know something of what has been going on. How far, if at all, have these negotiations been successful? Is the Prime Minister to wait until, by the pressure of questions, seine little information is extracted from him as to the conferences of which our Press has been full almost day by day? I do not say that means that all these matters can be set right by the single action of this Government, and I therefore think we might be told more frankly what are the intentions of the Government to effect cooperative action with other willing nations with a view to securing a higher measure of contentment, or it may be with a view to lowering that line of famine at which so large a number of these people are placed at present. The real manufacturer of Bolshevism and discontent of a revolutionary kind is hunger. It is the greatest and the most effective instrument the would-be revolutionists can have, and, incidentally, that condition of internal discontent, for which we cannot altogether escape the responsibility, has its effect in turn upon this country, and the efforts of very many well-meaning men and women, which might well be directed towards redressing wrongs which exist here, are being diverted, naturally, and the energies of some of the best of our philanthrophists and our public men and women arc being exerted to try to lessen the effects of the. poverty existing still in some parts of the Continent.
You will not secure the condition of industrial peace and industrial prosperity in Britain so long as conditions abroad are so disturbed and so uncertain. Mystery usually makes nothing but mischief, and when you ask the workers of this country to settle clown to work, you are almost stunned with the reply, in the form of another question, "What about Russia? What about the condition of the people who may have to remain under the dominion of the Turk? What about the starving people of Austria? What about the manner in which one or the other section of absolutely innocent men and women are suffering in some part of the globe? So that although we ought not to undertake the responsibility for setting right all these grievous wrongs, yet it would be well for our peace of mind and for our higher measure of industrial peace and prosperity at home, if our Government could singly do as much as it can and cooperatively as much as it can arrange
with other countries. So I would ask that the Members of the House be told something definitely with regard to the negotiations which have recently been proceeding in Copenhagen and that we should have some amplification of the Prime Minister's statement in the earlier part of this week with regard to the intentions of the Government as to declaring not merely an actual, but an official state of peace between ourselves and Russia in order that diplomatic relations might at the very earliest date be re-established between ourselves and that country.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Perhaps the House will pardon one of the dwindling remnants of the old Gladstonian band of the later seventies to seize the opportunity given by the Debate of saying something about those populations to whose welfare Mr. Gladstone devoted some of the best years of his life. There is a striking contrast between President Wilson's declaration that secret diplomacy must come to an end and the secret diplomacy to which we have been treated so recently as the last one or two weeks. I want to ask the House what is the remedy for secret diplomacy? I hold that it is just as undemocratic and almost as unsafe to leave the decision of peace and war to a single individual, whether he is called a Kaiser, a Czar, or a Foreign Minister. I remember once discussing, with a very eminent politician, a member of a Cabinet, the question how much one colleague in any organisation ought to feel himself committed by the acts of the others, although in the inception and in the details of this action be was not consulted and was not conversant with them. My friend, a Member of the House of Peers, said, "Of course, the same thing happens in the Cabinet. For instance I am busy with a very difficult Department—Ireland—and therefore I cannot do anything with regard to foreign affairs except more or less leave them to the decision and to the knowledge of my Friend the Foreign Secretary." So whatever way you put it, unless you have a Foreign Secretary and a Prime Minister who are in intimate and daily intercourse, or indeed one and the same person, practically the Foreign Secretary is in almost complete control, up to a certain point, of the foreign policy of the country. But although the ultimate decision may be
left with another body of men you can, by a powerful individual and by his acts, he so committed that you either have to repudiate him or repudiate his policy, and with the comradeship of public life it is much more likely that the policy will be accepted than the colleague repudiated. The remedy which I have brought before the House, and shall continue to bring before the House as long as I am a member of it, is that we should follow the example of the French Chamber and have, attached to the Foreign Office, a well chosen Committee of this House consisting of its ablest, most level beaded and most trusted men, and that they should be brought into constant touch with the Foreign Office, should have an opportunity of discussing foreign affairs under a pledge of secrecy, of course, with the Foreign Secretary, and that we should get the decision of these terrible questions on which peace and war may be decided out of the always dangerous atmosphere of a single man with a single judgment and perhaps a single weakness of temperament and character.
I have risen as an old Gladstonian to make one or two appeals to the Prime Minister about two or three of the questions of the moment. The Noble Lord said he would not quote the pledges of the Prime Minister upon the question of Turkey. It may do no harm if I repeat the quotation made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in another place. This is what the Prime Minister said on 20th December, 1917:
What will happen to Mesopotamia must be left to the Peace Congress when it meets. But there is one thing that will never happen. It will never be restored to the blasting tyranny of the Turk. At best he was a trustee of this far-famed land on behalf of civilisation. Ah! What a trustee! He has been false to his trust and his trusteeship must be given over to more competent and more equitable hands chosen by the Congress, which will settle the affairs of the world.
Another quotation:
Outside Europe we believe the same principles should be applied. We do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the Turkish race with its capit..l as Constantinople. Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are in our judgment entitled to recognition of their separate nationa1 conditions.
I have down a question for oral answer to the Prime Minister. I have no doubt his answer will be the same as that given by Lord Curzon, which was in these terms:
The most reverend Primate alluded to the different declarations that have been made at various times since we went into the country by
responsible spokesmen of His Majesty's Government. He quoted in particular two declarations made in the course of last year, or the year before, by the Prime Minister. By those declarations we stand.
That is sufficient for me. These declarations apply mainly to two or three of the Eastern populations. I assume that Armenia will be made entirely independent. There was one passage in the speech of the Noble Lord last night which has given some alarm to the Armenians because it seemed to contemplate shutting out Armenia from the sea. I am sure the Government has no such intention because Armenia without any outlet to the sea would be deprived of a great deal of its power of development.
I want now to say a word about Greece and her claims. I was present the other day at a lecture given by a New Zealand journalist who had been with the Greek Army near Smyrna. He described what he had seen with his own eyes and done with his own hands there. He found the place crowded with the corpses, not merely of men, but of women and children. What was far more eloquent proof of what had taken place there than any statement of his was the production of a little Greek boy, not more than ten or twelve years of age. This boy's father had been butchered, his three brothers had been butchered, and he himself had been left for dead, and one saw on the tiny leg of this poor little child the marks of the wound which had been inflicted upon him bythe bullets of the Turks. Now I appeal to the not far distant eloquence of the Prime Minister that no more Christian populations shall be left under the control of Turkey in the peace that is about to be made. I see an hon. Member opposite, and I am bound to say that I understand his principle, namely, that Turkish nationality has the same right to respect as the nationality of the Greeks. I would not take away from Turkish control those portions of Asia Minor which are distinctly Turkish. Allusion has been made by the. hon. Member for. Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), to the case of the Chaldeans. I commend that case to the attention of the Government. The Cbaldeans are only a small people, and partly by their geographical position and for other reasons they have been almost forgotten. Yet they have been subject to the same horrible system of butchery and depredation as the Armenians, the Greeks and the other-races under Turkey. I have been instrumental in getting them a small sum from
the Armenian Relief Committee, but except that they seem to have been forgotten by the world. A small committee has been formed, of which I am a member, which is endeavouring to come to their relief, and I hope we shall get assistance from the Government in that work.
With regard to the Greeks, I have heard some astounding remarks within the last two or three months. I heard, for instance, that it was seriously argued that Thrace was required as a hinterland to Constantinople. A more astounding doctrine I have never heard. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has had the same opportunity as I have had of seeing the series of maps that arc in the possession of Monsicur Venizelos, which were drawn up by Bulgaria and published by a German firm before the War. There is no suggestion there of Greek partisanship, and all these maps show that Thrace through all the centuries has been a Greek possession. I tremble to think what would be the political fate of Monsieur Venizelos and of the policy he represents if the rights of Greece to Thrace are not to be accepted. I have seen in the Press, which is really the only source of information we have as a rule in regard to foreign affairs and even our own foreign affairs, that an understanding has been come to between Monsieur Venizelos and the Italian Government. I hope that is so and that it will mean that the Dodecanese will be given to the Greeks, for practically 95 per cent. of the population are Greeks. I understand that the Greek Government have made no claim upon the British Government in regard to the island of Cyprus. It will be a foolish and not a particularly creditable transaction if we withdraw from Greece the offer we made to her during the War, namely, that we would give back to her an island which, with the exception of a small minority, is heart and soul in favour of reattachment to the Mother Country.
The Noble Lord (Lord R. Oecil) has spoken about the League of Nations. He has earned the gratitude of his fellow countrymen by the splendid enthusiasm and the inexhaustible zeal which he has thrown into the advocacy of this policy. I was for many years a close neighbour of the Noble Lord in more stormy times than the present, and he was the last man that I should have thought would have been hailed as one of the great hopes of democracy. I regard the Noble Lord as the greatest hope of national and inter-
national democracy so far as the League of Nations is concerned that the world has to-day. I have no sympathy with that kind of talk which we constantly hear in private and in public about the League of Nations. When the Noble Lord said he would ask the Government to put its last sixpence into the League of Nations, an hon. Friend of mine said he would not put a farthing on it, much less sixpence. That spirit of cynicism in regard to the League of Nations is profoundly false. Does anybody doubt that the whole world, after the terrible experiences of the last five years, has had a change of mental attitude and a change of soul in regard to war? I have always held that we were bound to win in the war because of one fact—namely, that 4,000,000 social democratic votes were given in Germany in the election that immediately preceded the War. I placed my reliance on the power of those men from behind breaking up that great and perfect combination of the Kaiser and the soldiers which plunged Germany into war. Today, outside the soldiers and perhaps the bureaucracy, I do not believe there is any war party left in Germany. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I know certain hon. Gentlemen opposite regard that as too optimistic a statement, but it is my strong conviction.
There is no war party in this country that counts. There are militarists everywhere, and I am sorry to say that we have had some specimens of the spirit of militarism within the last few weeks in countries which I feel myself precluded from specially mentioning on this occasion. I believe with the Noble Lord that the next war must be more horrible than the previous war. I was shocked to-day—I was in America during sonic of the worst raids—by recollections of the number of children that were destroyed here by the bombs of Zeppelins during the War. All the science of war, apparently, is now being concentrated on the air, and there is not a man, woman or child in all the great cities of the world that would be free from the devastation of the next war. I believe the world has appreciated that. I am sorry that America has delayed the ratification of the Treaty of Peace. I think I know some of the reasons. I hope that America will not take up ultimately the attitude of liberating itself from the responsibilities of Europe. Whatever America may do, I believe that Europe for
its own protection ought to have some safeguard, and the only safeguard is the League of Nations, against the repetition of the horrors of the last five years. If that be not done, all the precious blood that has been shed will have been shed in vain, and our victory will be as nothing but dead sea fruit.

Major Earl WINTERTON: I in contradistinction to more eminent speakers who have taken part in this Debate, wish to speak about a country very closely affected by the Peace Treaty which is about to be signed by Turkey, a country whose future may have a very considerable effect upon the future of the British Empire. It is a country about v inch I am able to speak from personal knowledge. Those who have been in these countries in the-Near East are best able to judge as to what the conditions are likely to be if the present state of affairs remain. I have this, at least, in common with every previous speaker—that I agree most fully that-the present attitude of the Foreign Office towards information is one that is most disastrous, not only to this country, but to the whole of the British Empire. I would like to say, with all respect, to the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Labour Benches (Mr. Clynes) that a great many of us agree with every word he said on this subject. I regret that the Prime Minister was not in the House at the time, because it would have interested him to have heard the loud cheers from all parts of the House which greeted the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on this subject. It is absolutely essential, if we are to avoid catastrophe in this country or in Europe, that we should be treated with far more frankness by the Government and the Foreign Office than we have been hitherto. I am on a somewhat delicate subject, and I say, with no disrespect, that I consider it is a scandal that in most of the Debates on foreign policy only the Under-Secretary has spoken. I hope it will be possible for the Prime Minister to arrange that the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), who has a knowledge of foreign politics unrivalled by any Member in this House, should be available during the forthcoming Session to speak on Foreign Office questions.
The country to which I wish to allude is Arabia. I believe I am the only Member in this House who has actually served in a combatant capacity with the Arabs. I am a personal friend of Prince Feisul, and a very close friend of Colonel Lawrence
and other Englishmen and Arabs who were connected with the movement for the combined operations of the English and the Arabs in freeing Arabia from the Turkish yoke. Humble individual as I am, there is considerable responsibility on any Member of this House in speaking on the question of Arabia, owing to the very delicate relationship in which she stands to the Allies generally and especially to France and this country. It is right that it should be made perfectly clear what, in fact, has not been made clear, certainly not in the Allied Press of Europe, and not specially clear in the Press of this country—that the Arabs under their present King were as much Allies of this country during the War as Belgium or Serbia No. one who came into contact with them could ignore the fact that early in the War, in a spirit of independence and with great bravery, they threw off the Turkish yoke and freed their country. I do not want to say anything that is derogatory of the Czechu-Slovaks or of the Jugo-Slays, or of any small nationality who were on our side, but there were no small people who so readily or more bravely asserted their right of independence as did the Arab people. Can anyone point to the Jugo-Slays or the CzechoSlovaks doing what the Arabs managed to do so early in the War? I had the honour of fighting with the Arabs, and I say that the oin1inary Arab private soldier need not be afraid of comparison with any one of our Allies in fighting capacity. I speak on this subject with some difficulty, because I have such strong feelings about it that I am afraid I may be tempted into saying something that might be regarded as unfriendly to our Ally, France. It was with the utmost indignation that I saw the suggestion made in certain Allied papers that the Arab movement was a move organised entirely by us on the quid pro quo principle, and that on that principle we created the movement and we set up the present King of the Arabs. We did no such thing. It is true we gave our aid to the Arabs, and that aid was of very considerable advantage, but we gave our aid to the Arabs because they were fighting the Turks and we were fighting the Turks. Let it never be forgotten that the nations that defeated the Turks were the British and the Arabs. The reason why the Turkish Empire is overthrown to-day is because these two people fighting together on terms of comradeship overthrew a tyranny as great as was that of Germany.
The Arab people pressed for recognition and the right to settle what the future-form of the government shall be. They adhered to proposals put forward by them in Paris at the time of the Conference, and, they are entitled to say that not less justice shall be given to them than to other small nations. It is not for me as a private Member to say how far it is right for the Government to support them, but I do wish to put forward those two facts. The Arabs are as much. Allies of this country and France and Italy as were the Belgians. Serbs, or other small peoples. They fought with the utmost bravery and the utter disregard of consequences to themselves. Two-thirds of the Arab private soldiers had their wives and families in Turkish territory exposed to every massacre by the Turks. In many cases they have not seen, them since the commencement of the War They took just as much risk as any of the small peoples in Europe, and they are entitled to be treated as well. My second point is, that I regard with indignation the suggestion that we as a nation gave our assistance to the Arabs because we wished to get some said pro quo, some assistance in India or among the great Mussulman people. We did it to defeat the Turks, to carry out the policy which we always put in the forefront of our platform. as a nation in the War—that is, to enable small countries to shake off the yoke of a great tyranny. We did it successfully, and it is only right, to-day, when success is achieved, that the Arabs, with other small peoples, should have as much of these victories as is granted to these other small peoples, and that Allies more powerful than themselves should not in public discussion or in the Press or in private attempt to take away from them what they cannot be deprived of—that is, the glory of making a great and gallant fight on behalf of the forces of independence against a brutal tyranny.

The PRIME MINISTER: The discussion during the last two or three hours has covered a great deal of ground, and a great many questions have been addressed to the Government with which I shall do my best to deal before I sit down. I should like, however, before referring to the particular issues which have been raised to say out! word as to what has fallen from my Noble Friend (Earl Winterton). I do not think that he can complain about the effort which has been made by myself, by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of
London (Mr. Balfour), and by the Leader of the House, to enlighten the House as far as we can on the position of foreign policy. Although my hon. Friend who represents the Foreign Office (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth) has done his duty with skill, we are doing our best to support him, and whenever occasion demanded, when there was a great Debate like this, we have always, my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, the Leader of the House, or myself, Come down to give as much information as we had at our disposal.
A great deal has been said in the course of this discussion about open and secret diplomacy. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) opened on that note. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes) followed, and, though I had not the pleasure of hearing that speech, a full note was taken -and I was put in possession of what he said. Others have also rather dwelt upon the importance of greater frankness, greater candour, and more information being given to the House of Commons and the public. I am -all for that. But I should like to know exactly what it means. Does open diplomacy, for instance, mean an open discussion between those who represent the nation of the very difficult problems which we are attempting to solve?

Sir D. MACLEAN: No!

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend says "No." That is what I expected him to say. But that is how it was interpreted. At the commencement of the Conference it was said, "Why do not you have your debate in public?" It has taken long enough in all conscience to come to some sort of conclusion, but I guarantee that had there been public debates reported in the Press we should not have solved the very first of those problems up to this very hour. Not only that, but it would have been full of danger. We listened to the case presented on one side and the other, and I make free to confess that, after hearing the whole discussion and hearing what was to be said against the point of view which we adopted at the start, we changed our view. And that is perfectly right. One has to hear every side. But it would be very difficult to effect a change of course, which was essential if we were to got anything like agreement, if declarations
made in the initial stages had been published and discussed and supported on one side and criticised on the other. Open diplomacy of that sort would have been fatal to anything in the nature of compact or agreement between us.
That was the first consideration in arriving at peace. If what is meant is that the decisions which we arrived at should be published, that was clone. I say without fear of challenge that never in the history of any conference ever held has there been such publicity given to the decisions, not merely the final decisions, but the decisions arrived at from day to day. The communications to the Press were very full, whenever decisions were even provisionally arrived at, and what was not published the Press supplemented themselves. In fact, it told everything and a great deal more. There never has been so much publicity. My right hon. Friend has suggested that we should lay our cards on the table with the blinds up. I am not sure that you could see the cards even with the blinds up if you were outside. But really it went a great deal further than that. You had men standing behind you when you had your cards to see what cards you had and to say, "Why did not you play the other one? You had so much a better card than that." That would be a most hopeless way to try to play, but luckily it was not that way. We were not really playing a game of one nation against the other. We were all trying our very best to arrive at a common decision which would not merely obtain common agreement among those who represented the nations at the Conference, but would on the whole obtain common acceptance among the peoples whom we had the honour to represent at the Conference. Within those limits we published everything, and we published far more than had ever been published before in the history of any Conference ever held in this world.
There is great difficulty in publishing what is going on sometimes. I will take the case mentioned in the very eloquent speech delivered by the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. McNeill). I would be the last man in the world not to sympathise with a great deal of what he said as to a small nation living among the mountains. But when be demands the publication of the report in reference to Montenegro, I think if I showed him that report he would realise that it would be a mistake to publish it. Naturally the
Count de Salis' report comments freely upon everything. The Serbians, Italians, Americans come in, and I do not know how many more. It would be a great mistake to publish that document. The House will, I am sure, remember this. I am constantly being brought face to face with it when difficult problems of this kind are discussed. My right hon. Friend said, "Will you not tell us a little more about the Adriatic difficulty? "There is a great deal of inflammable material spread all over Europe. It is very easy to drop a match into it, and therefore one has sometimes to refrain from making statements—although the Government may have a clear view upon the subject—so as to avoid doing something that may excite passions which are very ready to be aroused in various parts of Europe. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well how inflammable Italian opinion is upon the question of Fiume. The Government are doing their best to promote a settlement, but there are very great difficulties. One has only to read what appears in the papers on the subject to realise how great are the difficulties of the Italian Prime Minister and Government on that subject. A word said in France, in Britain, or in America without a full appreciation of what the state of opinion may be there would add enormously to the difficulties of the Government in coming to a reasonable settlement. And we want to avoid that if we possibly can.
For that reason I confined to a single sentence the statement which I made about the Adriatic. I need hardly say that we discussed it very fully. We have invited the Italian Prime Minister to meet M. Clemenceau and myself and the American representative in Paris within the next few days, but it is no use coming there unless he has got. full powers to settle. I do not want to say anything that will make it difficult. That is why, when I made the statement the other day, I did not give the whole information. I was anxious not to say anything which might give rise to conflict in Italy or which might suggest any antagonism on the part of this country or which could be distorted in any possible way. That is why I say, with confidence, that this is not secret diplomacy. It is purely the sort of reticence which in every big business you have got to show, I do not care what the business is, whether it is commerce, finance or dealings between
nations. The only difference is this, that a mistake once made between the nations is irreparable, producing disasters inconceivable, and, instead of doing harm to probably a firm or some thousands of shareholders, you may wreck the hopes of millions of people. Therefore I claim that the Government are right in these very difficult and delicate matters in exercising more reticence than perhaps many of our Friends would wish to see.
Subject to that, there are many questions upon which I think I can safely enlighten the House, although I am always doing it with the knowledge that, while the answer may be thoroughly understood in this country, it is not always understood in France. A mistake made here can be cleared up in the House of Commons—someone gets up and asks questions about it—but a misunderstanding in France or-Italy, or America, cannot be cleared up so, easily. You are not in the Italian House. of Representatives or the French or American to clear it up. Subject to that, I will. do my best to answer some of the questions put to me.
My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) began by asking about the French agreement. The agreement to guarantee France against any act of wanton aggression was subject, of course, to, the United States of America ratifying the compact. If there should be such a possibility as the United States not ratifying that compact, undoubtedly we are free to reconsider our decision. No undertaking has been given by the Government on the subject, and rightly so, for the. simple reason that we cannot contemplate that the United States of America would dishonour the signature of its great representative in Paris. Therefore it would be a mistake to discuss the subject on a supposition of that kind.
I have no reason to believe that the, United States will not agree to the Treaty. I will only say this: I agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) that for Great Britain alone to undertake that charge would be a very serious obligation. It would be in many respects a new departure, certainly since the days when we had a Continental frontier. As far as Belgium was concerned, we were one out of three who guaranteed neutrality. This will be the first time we shall be called upon to guarantee protection standing absolutely alone. All that will be taken into account when we come to consider what our final
decision shall be. My right hon. Friend has a perfect right to ask that if the Government are ever brought face to face with a position of that kind, they should inform the House of Commons, and give it an opportunity, if anybody wants to do so, to challenge our decision, before we irretrievably commit this country to that course. I do not think I can now be asked to go beyond that. It would be undesirable to discuss it beyond that at the present stage.
Now I come to the much more difficult problem of Russia—a frightful morass, I agree. There was complete agreement, as I stated on Monday, among the Allies as to the policy to be pursued there. There was complete agreement as to the policy which is known as non-intervention. We had already proposed, as has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, to send assistance, valued, I think, at —15,000,000, to the armies that were fighting there against the Bolshevik authorities. But beyond that we could not commit the country, and it was right to let them know that. That was the decision of France. She has already undertaken some liability, but nothing which is comparable to ours. They do not propose to undertake any further responsibility in the matter. That is also, I think, the attitude of Italy. As far as America and Japan are concerned, they were not represented at the Conference by plenipotentiaries, and therefore it would be unfair for me to state what their views were on the subject. They were concerned only with part of the problem—I mean practically concerned. They were concerned with that part of it which deals with Siberia, and there I have no doubt the discussions are going on; in fact, discussions are going on between the American and Japanese Governments with regard to what is to be done there in the event of the Bolshevik army making very much further progress towards the East. I do not understand that any final agreement has been arrived at between them up to now. That is the position in regard to Russia.
My right hon. Friend complained that I said the other day that it seemed to me that the Bolsheviks ought to make peace with the people who are making war with them. That seems to me to be common sense. My right hon. Friend says:
Will they not consider any suggestion for peace with Russia until Denikin and Koltchak are destroyed?
Who is Russia? The trouble is that there is no Russia. A civil war is going on in Russia to decide that very issue. It may he said that at the moment the Bolsheviks are victorious. That is so—far the moment. They have been victorious before, and have been driven back. At the beginning of this year Denikin's Armies were holding only a very small tract of territory at the back of the Black Sea. They rolled forward, and got within 160 miles of Moscow. They have now been driven back, and have lost a good deal of the territory—not most of the territory, but a good deal,—which they won earlier in the year. Koltchak's Armies have sustained very severe reverses. No man would venture to predict, from what he knows of Russia, that the conflict is at an end.
There is no government at the present time which can speak for the whole of Russia. There are great tracts of Russia that are not represented either by General Denikin or Admiral Koltchak or the Soviet Government. That is one of the facts. There are even great territories nominally under General Denikin's sway which are really not so. I have no doubt at all, if all the facts were known, that there are great tracts of territory behind the Bolshevik lines where the Bolsheviks are not in control. Last time I spoke on this subject I stated to the House, of Commons, and I repeat it with fresh information, that one of the difficulties in Russia is this: The vast majority of the population are indifferent. You cannot divide them into Bolsheviks and supporters of Denikin. That is the fact. The peasants in the main want to be left alone. I do not believe they care very much either for one or the other.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why blockade them?

7.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: There arc plenty of difficulties in this matter without adding to them. There is really no one who can speak for Russia. If the Bolsheviks want to speak for Russia they can do so by summoning a National Assembly, freely elected by the Russian peasants and Russian workmen. That Assembly would speak on behalf of Russia. I do not say it would be Bolshevik; I doubt it. I do not say it would be pro-Denikin. It would possibly be something quite different from either. But, at any rate, it would be Russia,
and then you would have something you could make peace with. But now you have only warring factions advancing and receding and receding and advancing, swaying hither and hither, with vast populations outside that are never affected in the least by this terrible conflict. The House has only to look at a map. I had the pleasure the other day of pointing out the map to some friends of mine who were at Downing Street—Members of the House. You have only small Armies there of about 200,000, who have not only to defend 1,300 or 1,500 miles of front, but have to control thousands of square miles behind, with a population which is sometimes indifferent, sometimes hostile.
Under these conditions, there is no Russia you can make peace with. Suppose you pursue the policy which has been suggested. Suppose you say, "We will make peace with Denikin for this; we will make peace with Lenin and Trotsky for that." Not of one of them could guarantee peace fir respect of any of the territories nominally under their sway. Why? Because they do not represent the Russian people. Until there be some means by which the Russian people can speak authoritatively, and declare what their minds are upon this subject—I am afraid it seems a policy of despair—nothing better can be done than to pursue the policy in regard to which the Allies are in complete accord. It is a dismal prospect, but there it is. I agree it is a dismal prospect, but them is nothing more dismal than the realisation that always comes when you do not recognise the facts; and the fact here is that the Soviet Government no more represents the vast multitudes in Russia than any of the other warring factions do. Therefore there is at the present moment no basis for peace. We must keep a vigilant watch on the situation. When Russia will evolve, when she will come out of this darkness, when she will come out Of this terrible conflict, no one knows. When she does emerge, when there is sonic sort. of firm and steady Government with whom you can negotiate, it will be the duty of tine Allies, in their own interests, in the interests of the world and of civilisation, to take. the first real opportunity of making peace. It has not yet arrived, I regret to say. That is the judgment of all the Allied representatives who discussed the matter last week in Downing Street.
I come now to the question of Austria. That offers another difficulty of a very
serious character. A very large sum of money was allocated to the relief of distress in Europe. I think our contribution was £12,500,000. I am not sure whether the whole of that fund has been expended Within the last few days we have also sent coal up to Vienna. The Italians are sending quite a substantial contribution in the way of grain from Trieste. I agree with the Noble Lord that this 7.0 P.M. is really only "soup-kitchen relief." It is not adequate, but it is all you can do to mitigate suffering. I agree with him there is only one way, and that is to set them on their feet and let them work their own way through. It is easy to say that, but how is it to be done? This country cannot undertake the whole task of setting the world, which has been shattered, on its feet again. We are asked to help here and help there—to help the Armenians, to help the Chaldean Christians, to help the Poles, because to-day you have the same sort of appeal from Poland. There is no part of the world where there is not that appeal, and they naturally turn to England, which has always shown in the past its readiness to respond to every appeal which is made by suffering humanity in any part of the world. We cannot do it. My hon. Friend made a very good reply when he pointed out that, after all, we are carrying burdens which are equal to our strength. We must, at any rate, see that we do not go beyond our depth. I do riot see for the moment what can be done in Austria and in Central Europe, unless America comes frankly in with us. What does it mean? Every obligation into we enter is an obligation which puts its deeper info the mire. My right hon. Friend quoted the sovereign as worth so much and the franc as worth so much, and the lira worth still less, and the mark gone out of sight, but still every obligation of this kind is in respect of something which has got to be purchased in another country. You have got to get your grain and your raw material and to purchase most of the commodities in some other land, and pay in depreciated currency, which becomes even more depreciated by reason of those obligations. We must bear that in mind.
My Noble Friend gave rather a shuddering picture of what might happen. I will not say it was a nightmare. Russia is in an indescribable condition all over that gigantic territory, which is a continent
in itself, Central Europe faced with the pinch of famine; Germany unable so far to lift herself and to stand erect. That is Central Europe, that is Western Europe, that is Eastern Europe, and that is those gigantic tracts of Northern Europe, Poland and the Baltic Provinces. It is vital that this country should be firm. It is vital that this country should be sound. It is vital that this country should recover strength, throw off exhaustion, get over such debility as the great strain of war and blood-letting of five years have inflicted upon us. It is essential that this country should recover strength, not for the 45,000,000 of people who are in it, or even for the whole of the Empire, but because the whole future of civilisation throughout the world depends upon Britain recovering her strength. Therefore, when there are appeals here and appeals there, do not let any hon. and right hon. Gentleman imagine that it is from mere hardness of heart that we hesitate before we accede to them. We do not turn deaf ears to them, but we have got to consider carefully, having regard to the strength we have, how far we can go, what obligations we can incur, remembering the vital importance of keeping Britain from having its strength crushed by too much of a burden upon even its mighty limbs. That is what we want. I wish I could see my way to do something to restore Central Europe. It was discussed yesterday, and it was discussed last week at our Conference. Ways and means were discussed yesterday, but I will not pretend that they were adequate. They cannot be adequate unless America comes in, with France and with Britain, to take her fair share.
I now come to Turkey. My Noble Friend said, "Why all this prolonged delay?" I think I can tell him. It would not have been possible without misconceptions, without misunderstandings between nations where a good understanding is essential, to have a hurried peace. What do I mean by that? It was essential for the settlement of the Turkish problem that we should know what America meant to do. My Noble Friend said, "Why could you not make peace with Turkey, cutting out all the non-Turkish territories and then leaving Constantinople and Anatolia to be solved?" I think on consideration he will see that is not possible. What is to be done with Constantinople? What is to be done with the Straits? Can
We leave those gates which were slammed in our face under the same gatekeeper? If those doors had been open and if our Fleet and our merchant ships had been free to go through, I do not like to express a military opinion, but the military opinion of a high authority is that the War would have been shortened by two or three years. We could not get in to support Roumania or to support Russia when she was sagging; we could not get on the Danube. It would have made a difference of two or three years in the War if those gates had been open. They were shut treacherously in our faces. We cannot trust the same porter. As to what will remain, much depends upon whether America comes in. My Noble Frend knows as well as anybody knows that there were suggestions made in connection with America. I do not want to dwell on those further now.
Then there is Anatolia, which was referred to by an hon. Member, and there arc Christian communities in Asia Minor which have to be considered. Would America take any share, and, if so, what share? France has great burdens, Britain has great burdens, Italy has great burdens. Much depended on whether America, which has no great extraneous burdens and which has gigantic resources, was prepared to take her share in this great task of civilisation, in this renowned and historic land. But until America declared 'what she would do, any attempt to precipitate the position might have led to misunderstandings with America, and would have caused a good deal of suspicion. We regard a good understanding with America as something which is so vital that, whatever it cost in the way of increased burdens upon our shoulders, and the possibilities of revolt, we considered it worth while, for the sake of a good understanding with America, not to precipitate the decision which we were prepared at any moment to take. That is the reason why we could not make peace with Turkey.
It may be asked, "Are you in a better position now?" We are in a better position to this extent—we are entitled to say now, "We have waited up to the very limits we promised, and we have waited beyond them." I do not know what the decision of America will be, but it does not look promising. If one felt confident that America would come in, it might be worth while waiting another month or two or three. But those are not, speaking
quite frankly, the indications at the present moment. Therefore, we consider now, without any disrespect to our colleagues at the Peace Conference, and without in the least wishing to deprive the United States of America of sharing the honour of guardianship over these Christian communities, that we are entitled to proceed to make peace with Turkey. We propose to do so at the earliest possible moment. We have had some preliminary discussions on the subject. As far as we have had them, they were very promising. They will be renewed partly in this country, partly probably in France, in the course of the next few days, and I hope that it will be possible to submit to Turkey the terms of peace at an early date.
Questions have been put to me on that subject. One is about the Chaldean Christians. The Chaldean Christians, with a body of Armenians, numbering between 50,000 and 53,000, have been placed in refugee camps under British guardianship, and up to the present a sum of £2,500,000 has been expended upon relief for these very interesting people. They are engaged in various forms of work for the Government in that country —military work, gendarmerie, road making, camp making, cultivation, and so on; but the most important duty of all is to get them back to their own districts as soon as you possibly can. That cannot be done until you have established peace in that area, but meanwhile we are undertaking the duty of relieving them of any danger of distress. The other question put—and the answer was supplied last night by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords—was whether we adhered to the pledges given by me on behalf of the Government, that in the Treaty of Peace we would see that these Christian communities were not put any longer under the dominion of a Government that had abused its authority in a way which has shocked civilisation. I need hardly say that I emphasise what Lord Curzon said in the House of Lords last night. As far as the Government is concerned, we shall enter into the Conference with a view to doing all in our power to enforce the pledges which we gave to the House of Commons and to the country during the progress of the War.
The other question put to me was in reference to the League of Nations. I regret that my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) has cast doubts
upon the sincerity of the Government. I do not think it does any good, it I may say so quite respectfully.

Lord R. CECIL: I did not desire to do that, but there is this impression abroad, and I desire to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of removing it.

The PRIME MINISTER: When it, is repeated, it is like every other slander—it gets more power unless it be accompanied by a very emphatic denial. I know the sincerity of the Noble Lord, but in the main people who are very sincere themselves are the last people in the world to cast suspicions on the sincerity of others, and I regret that my Noble Friend did it. He can believe me, not merely is the eminent sincere on the subject, but they have done everything that a sincere Government could do in order to carry our, every obligation in respect of the League of Nations. For instance, when the Treaty of Peace carne up for discussion, had we not been sincere in this matter, we should have chosen representatives on the Committee which drafted the League of Nations who would have placed difficulties in its way. We chose two representatives who were enthusiastic, who were zealous; we chose the real zealots of the League, and gave them a perfectly free hand. They were my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) and General Smuts. What more could we have done? General Smuts had issued one of the most powerful and able pamphlets on the subject I have ever had the privilege of reading, and he was chosen very largely because he was a strong believer. So was my Noble Friend, who has always been an advocate. They represented us on that body. They had a perfectly free hand, and they placed the League of Nations in the forefront of the Treaty. We agreed to that; we supported the whole of their recommendations. There was a great constitution drafted. There were some of us who believed that that was not the best way of doing it, because, with all our prejudices in favour of unwritten constitutions, we thought you would probably attain the object better had it been done tentatively, rather than by having constitutions, like the constitution of America. and the constitution of South Africa, all written out, tabled, and with all the details. But still, we deferred to the views of our representatives in that respect, and it was incorporated in the Treaty.
We can take no further steps at the present moment. The Secretary is an able official of the Foreign Office; but we cannot have the League of Nations until the Treaty has been ratified. Let me speak quite frankly here. The difficulties have not come from Great Britain. We have talked less about it, it is true, but everything that is needful for action has been done by Great Britain. The difficulties have come from the country which took the leading part in the idea, and it is very unfair to suggest insincerity to the country which has adhered in every particular to this great idea, and has done everything that is needful to carry it into operation. I do not doubt that America will come in, but if she comes in on conditions which will not be applicable to all other countries, it is very difficult to have men sitting at the same board under different conditions—one nation absolutely free and untrammelled, and the other nation with its hands tied behind its back. If we meet at a League of Nations, it must be a League of equal nations.
But without presuming in the least to say anything about what America is doing or is likely to do, the League of Nations is so vital to the peace of troubled Europe that the Government arc convinced that this country, at any rate, must go on with it. I agree with all that was said by my Noble Friend and by my right hon. Friend sitting opposite (Sir D. Maclean). What would happen if you had another war baffles imagination. Discoveries made almost at the end of the War, if they had been used, would have produced horrors indescribable— discoveries by ourselves, discoveries by the French, discoveries by the Germans. Another year or two of war would have produced consequences which could have been described only in works of fiction like the remarkable works of Mr. H. G. Wells; and if, after years of devising and inventing, we still have another war with new terrors that no man ever thought of at the beginning—because there were terrors at the end of this War which no one dreamed of at the beginning of the War—if we are going to have a repetition of that, civilisation might as well be wrecked, and this world be driven to something, not the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages, because they did not produce annihilation, but to something that the world has never conceived of in its most imaginative moments.
It is important—it is vital to the world—that there should be some civilised means of preventing this barbarism. My Noble Friend says there are no indications in our Estimates of the work of the League. He is quite wrong. If he will examine those Estimates, he will see that we have considered carefully the Estimates, with a view to putting in nothing that is provocative, but until the League has been founded—until the League is formally established, until we know that the nations of the world, including America, will work the League—we must make our own country secure. If Britain is insecure, peace is insecure; if Britain is insecure, liberty is insecure; if Britain is insecure, civilisation is insecure. When we enter the League, we must be on a foundation of security, and when we do we can then talk like a country which has throughout the ages always thrown its influence on the side of liberty and civilisation. I quite agree with my Noble Friend that the League must be proceeded with, and that the League must be made a reality. Having said that, I will add only one word in conclusion. My right hon. Friend began to talk about the possibilities of this country, the perils in front of it in trade, in finance, and the perils of an insecure Europe. This country displayed qualities during the War that surprised its own sons —qualities of grit, qualities of endurance, qualities of resource. Those qualities are being displayed now, and, in spite of everything which has been said from week to week, from month to month, I am watching carefully, and I can see this great country recovering strength, recovering power. This year it may have a deficiency, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, in its trade, but even the trade of the last month or two shows that next year it will have a surplus. This is a country where, once it has made up its mind to pursue a certain course, its common sense, its wisdom, its native sagacity, its energy, begin to be reasserted, and I venture to say that never was there a time in the history of the world when its strength was more needed for human progress.

Major-General SEELY: I should like to say one word with regard to the opening remarks of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He referred to the possibility of difficulties with France in the event of the United States being unable to continue the engagement which they had entered into. I am only entitled to speak for myself, but I believe I speak
for a great many other Members of this House when I say that, whatever others may do, we shall stand by the side of France, and the fact that others may desert her will make us more than ever determined, in the event of unprovoked attack, to remain her friend. We owe so much to France, we are bound to her now by such sacred ties, that I am quite sure that, atlhough it is right that any fresh obligation shall be submitted to this House, I think we may be certain what the answer will be. It will be that. after all, we have done something together, and France remains for ever our firm friend. The Prime Minister drew us a picture of a troubled Europe, and urgently impressed upon all concerned the necessity for a League of Nations. I heartily agree with what lie said as to the terrible consequences of another war, I need hardly say, for it was owing to what he asked me to do that I learnt something of the possibilities of future war. Words cannot describe the horrors that would follow from the failure of the League of Nations and the plunging of Europe again into war, and I am quite sure the eloquent language the Prime Minister used as to the frightful consequences of further conflict are more than amply justified by the facts. But the Prime Minister said that we must keep our powder dry until the League of Nations is formed, and it is quite true that our national defence must remain our first care, for, unless we are defended, we cannot defend the things we care about—liberty, justice, truth, honour, all the things we fought for and won. But also we are told, and told with truth, that while Europe is troubled and very poor, so are we poor, and we must save money.
I propose to make a practical suggestion —the only one I can see—by which we can both save money and at the same time maintain national security. I believe the only way by which we can do it is really to co-ordinate our national effort. Some of my hon. Friends have urged that there should be a Joint General Staff for land, sea, and air. I am sure that is not enough. There must be more than that. You mast have a Ministry of Defence. If anyone likes to go to Gibraltar, he will see a striking instance of what the failure of coordination can do in the way of waste of money. The people concerned there are the Navy, Army, and civil population. Each of them wanted a water supply, but, because neither the Navy, nor the Army, nor the civil population could agree on a
scheme, they each made their own water supply, and each cut their own tunnels through the rock at vast expense. The result is, I was told when I was there last, that hundreds of thousands of public money were wasted by the failure to coordinate efforts. There are many other instances. There is one with which the Prime Minister is very familiar, a much bigger thing. Before the War, the Committee of Defence considered the question of the possibility of invasion of these shores. The then Prime Minister attended and gave great attention to it. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the conclusions to which we came, the substance of which was announced in this House. But the consequences which should have flowed from that decision did not flow from it, because the Departments concerned had not got one head who could think out the results of the decision and formulate the necessary plans for land and sea defence accordingly.
It may be said that the Prime Minister is the man to do that, but I submit that the Prime Minister cannot possibly have time, and that you want a Minister who shall devote his whole time, not to administration, but to see how you can secure the defence of this country and Empire, and maintain our obligations—our precious obligations—to France in ease of unprovoked attack. You must have some man who gives his whole time to it. Of course, this will be all economy, if the office is any guide. With regard to actual salaries people are paid, the cost of management. is so small a part of any business that there would be a real economy there, because, although you would create a new Minister, I can conceive that the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Army Minister, and the Air Minister would each be paid lesser sums than they receive to-day, or which are on the Estimates to-day. Moreover, the staffs of each of these Departments would be very largely reduced, for what we call the general staff would be in the Department of that Ministry. This is no new proposal as, of course, the Prime Minister knows very well. The brilliant father of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War made this proposal in the years gone by. It was advocated by him with eloquence and vigour, and on the same grounds on which I advocate it to-day, namely, the only way by which to get security and at the same time real economy. But if it were needed then, how much more is it needed now,
because then the complication was how far to co-ordinate the efforts of the two elements, the land and the sea. But now there is the third element—the air, which everybody agrees has infinite possibilities, some of which were referred to by the Prime Minister in describing the horrors of future war. This introduces an element of complication and a possible saving far greater than in days gone by, whether it be the defence of Malta, Gibraltar, Palestine, the new countries of which we shall have to take control under the League of Nations, Mesopotamia, the frontiers of India, or our national security and its relation to the Fleet. All of these are vitally affected by air. I do not think we can expect to get the heads of existing departments to give their whole attention to this when they are so overwhelmed by Ministerial duties.
There would be a further economy in the suggestion I make, and that would be that you would get rid of the present Ministry of Supply. The present Ministry of Supply or the Ministry of Munitions was a vital necessity when formed. The right hon. Gentleman was the man, I always think, who won the War, and one of the ways he won the War was by making the Ministry of Munitions. But that was to get great bulk production which we do not want now. What we want now is to keep the art and science of defence alive, especially at sea. What we really want is not the vast Estimates now proposed for the sea, but the keeping alive of the art and science of our sea-power, which are more required, it seems to me, than a great quantity of ships at the present moment. That is the kind of thing that this Minister would consider. But you would not require a Ministry of Supply for many years to come to produce a great quantity of things in bulk. What you want is some arrangement by which the two or three Departments do not compete one with the other. You want to avoid the Army and Navy competing with each other for boots, but you do not want to make the Army and Navy wear the same boots.
To sum up, I make this definite proposal —and I hope it may be supported—that there should be set up a Ministry of Defence, with responsible Ministers for Land, Sea, and Air, each charged with his own administration, and not that fatal arrangement by which one man should
attempt to do the administration of three offices, but each submitting his Estimates and all proposals for national defence to the Minister of Defence, advising whom would be a real Imperial General Staff, a chief of the Imperial General Staff, representatives of the best brains of the Army, Navy, and Air, and the greater proportion of all the General Staffs in the offices concentrated in that office. It would have this lasting mid great advantage that it would make Imperial co-operation much easier. The Dominions could send to this great. imperial General Staff their representatives, and, instead of having to send first to the War Office, then to the Admiralty, then to the Air Office, they would find in that one building all the knowledge that could be obtained of this most complicated business of national and Imperial defence. I earnestly commend this to the Prime Minister, because I am convinced that only by some such means can we ensure due economy, with real safety to our country and Empire.

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: There is, at all events, one satisfactory feature about the speech of the Prime Minister, inasmuch as we are told that peace is at least in sight with Turkey. But I must confess to a considerable disappointment with his declaration about Russia. He very rightly said that Russia is not represented by any one responsible Government, but that, I submit, is hardly the point. The point is, could not the Allied Powers exercise a mediating influence to such a degree that the warring factions would lay down their arms and come to a satisfactory arrangement one with another? I think it should be possible. It is at all events certain that the Bolshevik Government is anxious for peace, and, after all, we have encouraged warfare for so long in Russia that we have a very great responsibility to see that peace may be secured at the earliest possible moment. That is not the question about which I rose to say a few words. I am deeply concerned and deeply distressed with the horror of the conditions in Central Europe. There is no doubt about it that Central and Eastern Europe are in a state of starvation, and in Austria the condition is worst. No doubt the economic condition of Central Europe is to a very large extent due to the results of five years of war, but I do not agree with the Prime Minister when he says that our responsibility is somewhat
limited. Our responsibility cannot be limited. The economic condition of Austria, for instance, to a very large extent is due to the fact that we have stripped Austria to the bone, and that we have the first charge on whatever property is left in Austria. I ask the House to consider how far it is possible for Austria to obtain Credit to set her mills and factories going when the first charge on all her property is with ourselves? Who is going to advance her money on those conditions? I am told by competent people that the condition of Germany is only about six months behind that of Austria. If the present policy is pursued towards Germany economic collapse is inevitable. If we are honest we should ask ourselves: How far are we responsible for the condition of things in Germany? The uncertainty of the indemnity is to a very large extent responsible for the inability of Germany to obtain credit, and the countries which export raw material to her and give her credit do not know from hour to hour or day to day what is Germany's economic condition. The harder Germany works, the more money we propose to take from her. I do not know what the verdict of history will be as to the conduct of the Allied statesmen in Paris. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be considered a more liberal-minded statesman than Castlereagh or Wellington, but they did see that their treaty with France secured to us in France a contented and prosperous neighbour. If we are to believe the people who have been in Paris the last thing which the Allied statesmen considered was what the international consequences of their policy would be.
It was very truly said by the right hon. Gentleman that in order to secure the liberty and happiness of the world, Great Britain must be strong and prosperous. I submit that the economic condition of this country is directly affected by the economic conditions of Central and Eastern Europe. Before the War we used to send £300,000,000 of exports out there. What is going to be the fortune of this country if Central and Eastern Europe collapses, and the women and the children are in a starving condition? After all, I. believe the high price of commodities in this country is very largely affected by the condition of mid-Europe. Sir George Paish has pointed out the depreciated, condition of the sovereign and that we cannot pay for what we buy from America
because we cannot get paid for the goods we send to Germany. When are we going to get some of these indemnities which we were so lavishly promised at the last election? How is Germany to pay for the Armies of Occupation? How is she to pay these large indemnities on which the whole finance of France is based It cannot be done if we are going to rescue Germany. I should like to see a more liberal-minded policy adopted. After all, Burke said with perfect truth that "magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom." The conclusion of the matter is that if we want to rebuild we must realise that no nation lives to itself and that every nation has a right to live.
Only yesterday we were discussing the question of the erection of a fitting me morial to our glorious dead. I cannot help thinking that the most fitting memorial is to secure peace. The only condition under which permanent peace can be secured is the exercising from our foreign policy of militarism, strong domination, and power. No one values the friendship of France more than I do. No one admires her heroic fortitude or sympathises more deeply with her in her sufferings. I can quite understand her feelings. The late war, after all, was only the sequel to the age-long struggle which she has conducted. I would submit that we also have our traditional policy, which is based on international understanding and international co-operation. However much I admire France, I would wish that our statesmen who are sympathetic to her would tell her that the greatest guarantee of her safety, prosperity, and happiness is reliance on the principles of international co-operation and strength. We not only have our traditional policy. We also have our traditional instincts. We are a magnanimous and a generous people. Not only that, but we are a people who have some considerable political insight. If we pursue a policy based upon pure domination, suspicion, and force, the people of this country know perfectly well there is no vista before us except that of war. I should wish to see a more statesmanlike, a more generous, and a more magnanimous policy adopted ton ands Germany and Austria. Cannot we see that Austria can never recover her strength so long as the present peace conditions hold good?
Neither can I imagine Germany recovering her economic condition so long as the uncertainty of the indemnity is hanging
over her head. The only way out of this is by the establishment of the League of Nations. Let that League get to work to reconsider and redraft the Peace Treaty. Let it fix the amount which Germany can pay—and let it be a fixed amount! Let us abandon once and for all this policy, this futile policy—which all history has proved so futile—of trying to keep a large portion of the people of Europe. permanently in economic and political subjection.

REQUISITIONED PREMISES (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).

8.0 P.M.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not rise to follow the arguments of the Noble Lord who has just spoken. I should just like to say a word or two as to how thoroughly I disagree with him in what he said about peace with Bolshevik Russia. I cannot imagine anything more disastrous than that we should enter into any kind of negotiations with the Bolshevik Government. On that account I was very much relieved to hear what the Prime Minister said in his speech. Both on the ground of morality and on the ground of high politics, I cannot imagine a, more shortsighted policy than that just recommended by my Noble Friend. But I do not rise for the purpose of dealing with that, but to call attention to another matter altogether. That is the occupation of private property in London by Government officials, and, particularly the occupation of museums, public parks, hotels, and other non-governmental buildings. This is a question of very great interest to London members. On more than one occasion during this Session I have raised it, and I make no apology for raising it again. At the present moment, more than a year since the Armistice, no less than 3,000,000 square feet of private property is still occupied by Government officials. I believe I am right in saying that something like 50,000 clerks in Government offices are still housed in commandeered premises. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The First Commissioner of Works, I am quite aware, is in a difficult position. Every day of the week he must have some request to find housing accommodation for the ever-increasing staffs of Government offices. I sympathise with him. None the less, I do think the time has come when we must make a most emphatic protest against the continued occupation of, particularly, London museums, and next,
London hotels, by these innumerable Government officials. As a Member for Chelsea, a commandeered property which, perhaps, interests me most directly is Burton. Court, Chelsea. I do not, however, allude to Burton Court as Member for Chelsea, but also because everyone who has any affection for the pleasant sights of London does most seriously object to its continued occupation by the Ministry of Pensions. The last time upon which I raised this question here the First Commissioner of Works gave me little hope of the evacuation of the site, for the reason that something like £100,000 of public money had been spent upon the Ministry of Pension buildings that now cover it.
I quite agree that that is a very serious expenditure, and in these days of the need for economy it is a serious matter to say that that £100,000, should be scrapped, and the site immediately evacuated. I think, however, it should be remembered that when first the site was taken over for the Ministry of Pensions the explicit understanding was that it was a temporary arrangement, and that the site would very soon be evacuated. In the first instance an actual date was suggested in the agreement. It was originally suggested that a year after the ratification of Peace the site should be completely evacuated. I am quite aware that after that other correspondence followed, and the actual date was waived; but the understanding still continued that the occupation of the site was a temporary one, and that in the near future the buildings would be removed. Anyone who reads carefully the White Paper published by the House of Lords in the spring could Dome to no other conclusion than that the site would very soon be evacuated after Peace was signed. That being so, it came to me as a great shock upon the last occasion when I raised this question that the First Commissioner of Works said it would be a matter of years before the buildings could be taken down. The House should realise what that means. This particular site, which is part of one of the best examples of town-planning in London, is not the property of any Government Department. It is the property of the Chelsea Commissioners, and was bought by them comparatively recently out of their funds. It seems to me to be outrageous that a Government Department at 8.0 P.M. whatever instigation should take over this site upon the distinct understanding that its occupation
should be temporary and that then after a year of Armistice they should repudiate that contract and let it be understood that it will be some years before the site will be eventually evacuated. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the site was being used for the administration of pensions and that all of us who sympathise with the work of the Pensions Ministry would not desire that that work should be inconvenienced, that was no answer. This site was taken over on the understanding that its occupation would be purely temporary, and I emphatically protest against the decision of the Office of Works, or who ever is concerned, that it will be some years before it will be evacuated.
I hope when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will be able to give me a more satisfactory answer. I understand that the Chelsea Commissioners feel most strongly on this subject. I know that all the public bodies in London connected with questions of this kind also feel strongly, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman, having a genuine feeling for the beautiful sights of London will also take that view. The site I refer to was taken over for purely war purposes on the under- standing that it would soon be evacuated, and it is unjust, a year after the Armistice, that we should be met with the answer that a large sum of money has been spent on this site, and that it will be kept in the occupation of the Ministry of Pensions for some consderable time longer. I suggest that this is a case where the right hon. Gentleman might well apply the policy that he has already described to the House of housing Government Departments in the outer areas of London. This seems to me to be exactly a case for removing the officials of the Ministry of Pensions who are now working in the buildings in Burton Court to one of those buildings in Outer London, the Alexandra Palace or the Crystal Palace, for example, and by this means free from the very ugly buildings that now disfigure it this site which is one of the most pleasant open spaces in the West of London.
I come now to the London hotels. There, again, it seems to me to be almost out-rageous that thirteen months after the Armistice the following hotels are still occupied by Government officials: Metropole, York, Holborn Viaduct. St. Ermin's, Horrex's, Windsor, Howard, and the Salibury. Let me suggest that the continued occupation of these hotels when
there is an unprecedented demand for hotel accommodation is reacting most injuriously upon the whole of the housing problem in London. I should like to hear, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, that all these hotels, without exception, will be completely evacuated by Government Departments before Easter next.
Then there is what I consider an even more serious question—that is the continued occupation of the London Museums by Government officials. After thirteen months of Armistice the National Gallery of British Art is still occupied by 781 officials. There are still 250 in the National Gallery, 1,290 in the Imperial Institute, though that cannot be exactly classed in the category of museums; 729 in the Victoria and Albert Museum, and there are still about 300 in the British Museum. I need not indicate to the House the grave objection to this continued occupation. A great grievance is felt by our overseas sightseers and others, and there is also a further grievance that a great deal of scientific and educational work is held up by the occupation of certain departments of these museums by Government officials. I think those objections are obvious to every hon. Member. More particularly in the case of the British Museum, which is one of the places which should have been freed first of all of Government officials. After thirteen months of Armistice important parts of the British Museum are still closed to the public and there is still something like 300 officials housed in it. I will give an instance or two of the Departments that are still housed in the British Museum. There is the Registry of Friendly Societies, which is not a temporary, but a permanent Department. That is not a war-time Department created within the last five years, but a permanent Department, and it occupies the whole of the first and second Northern Galleries on the upper floor, the whole of the Print gallery, and two rooms of the Greek and Roman Vase galleries, all the Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian historical antiquities, the Assyrian tablets, the Creation and Deluge tablets, and the Magical tablets. These things cannot be seen at all, and consequently a number of Biblical students are prevented from inspecting and studying the antiquities of the later Assyrian empires. The First Egyptian Room is crammed full of cases containing coffins and mummies which nobody can inspect. In the Second and Third Egyptian Rooms the
wall cases, containing mummies, are boarded up, and the whole of the floor space is occupied by a series of presses for friendly society registers. The Fourth Egyptian Room is completely occupied, by plaster and wood cubicles for the use of the Registry's staff, and the Fifth is used as a typewriting department. The fine Old Print Gallery, 182 ft. in length, is given up to wood and plaster cubicles for clerical work.
I suggest to the House that from every point of view that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think we have a right, whilst fully realising the difficulties, to demand that the right lion hon. Gentleman should give the House a definite date upon which all the museums, and particularly the popular museums to which the public go in large numbers, like the British Museum and the Tate Gallery, will be entirely evacuated. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's influence in the Government, if lie would send an ultimatum to his colleagues and give them notice to quit on a particular date, would be really doing something not only extremely popular, but something which is necessary in the interests of art and education. When he comes to reply, I hope he will be able to go a long way further than he did when he answered similar questions put by me some months ago, and really give the House a definite date upon which all the museums will be evacuated, and upon which the temporary buildings in Burton Court, Chelsea, will be removed, and the site handed back to the Chelsea Commissioners to be used as it was before the War, as an open space in that part of London.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has raised this question, like many others who have raised similar questions before, naturally finds it is not difficult to criticise the accommodation in London which is in possession of Government staffs. The hon. Baronet does not, however, realise what we have had to do or what our position has been since the Armistice. I propose to quote a few figures to really bring this question into a true perspective. The total headquarters Government staffs in London, excluding the Post Office and the Naval and Military staffs in August, 1914, were 18,000. In November, 1918, at the Armistice, they were 100,000. On 1st December, 1919, the number was 78,000.
On the date of the Armistice the 100,000 staff were housed as follows: There were 22,000 in thirty-four Crown buildings, 17,000 in fifty-five offices held on lease, 11,000 in eighteen hotels, 8,000 in fourteen public institutions, 22,000 in 850 sets of business offices, 9,000 in 180 private houses and flats, 2,000 in seventy clubs, 9,000 in fifty-eight temporary buildings in parks and public spaces. When the Armistice took place, far from a diminution of staffs taking place as might have been anticipated, we were immediately faced with an increase of staffs, and that went on for some considerable time. On the 1st of December, 1919, the total number of staffs had been decreased only by about 20 per cent. In spite of this being the case, before the Armistice I submitted a memorandum dealing with the demobilisation of commandeered premises, and I asked the Cabinet to approve of the line I then took. The first of my proposals was to release hotels; the second, museums and public institutions; the third, business premises; and the fourth, private houses. That order of priority has been very rigidly adhered to. We have surrendered nine hotels, eight museums and galleries, 256 business offices, eighty-one private houses and flats, and five clubs. We have left to surrender three museums out of eleven. These museums are practically in a condition to be surrendered in a very short time. I quite agree that it is very unsatisfactory if any gallery or museum is closed at any time. We have, however, already released the National Portrait Gallery, the London. Museum, Hertford House, and the bulk of the national galleries. The remaining galleries will be released in the course of the next few days, certainly in the course of the next week. I hope that the staff at the Imperial Institute will have left by the 1st February. The bulk of the Victoria and Albert Museum is open. There is still a staff of 729 in the occupation of the Board of Education, and they hope to return to their Whitehall offices in January. I am taking the most energetic steps to release the galleries at the British Museum, and, though I cannot announce to-day exactly when I shall be able to find other accommodation, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that two or three alternatives are being now discussed, and I have given the most stringent instructions that other accommodation must be found, so that these galleries may be released.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the British Museum be entirely free before Easter?

Sir A. MOND: Certainly before Easter, and I hope within a few weeks. I am doing my very best to get that done. There is a little misunderstanding on the hotel question. I fully realise the importance of the question; in fact, so much do I realise its importance that in the earlier part of my remarks I said that we gave the hotels first priority for clearance when we started demobilisation. There is one curious thing about the hotels which does not seem to be recognised. A number of proprietors of hotels have preferred to lease them to Government offices than to attempt to restart the hotel business after the War. The result is that four hotels that the hon. and gallant Member read out, the Howard Hotel, the Salisbury Hotel, the Hotel Windsor, and another, are all let to the Government on leases of considerable length by their proprietors for Government offices. Of the remaining five, the Holborn Viaduct is still in the hands of the Goal Controller. The only large hotel still outstanding is the Hotel Metropole, and I am in hopes that it will not be very long before that hotel will be restored to the public. The York Hotel, after all, is a very small thing. We hope to vacate these three hotels during the next few months. That will leave us with only two hotels to be vacated, namely, Horrex's, which is in the possession of the Ministry of Labour Appointment of Officers Department, and St. Ermin's Hotel. One of these has been sold for offices. There is no intention of restoring it as an hotel at all, and, therefore, whether the Government retains it or whether it is let privately for offices, makes no difference to the hotel accommodation.
Hon. Members must remember that since the War we have started something like seven new Ministries—the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Labour, the Pensions Ministry, the Transport Ministry, the Ministry of Supply, the Food Ministry, and the Ministry of Shipping. All these Ministries have had no permanent homes at all, and there has not been time to build permanent homes for them in Whitehall. These Ministries must have buildings, whatever size their staff may be, and it is therefore, necessary to provide buildings for them. I dare say that some day some successor of mine will put up some palatial block of buildings in Whitehall and that these Ministries will be housed there in
premises adequate to their importance. In the meantime, they have to occupy second-rate hotels, much to their disgust, and other buildings that I am able to acquire for them of that character. As the House has sanctioned these Ministries—only the other day it sanctioned the Ministry of Transport—it is not fair to turn round on the Office of Works and complain when we have to take buildings to house them. If the House wants less accommodation occupied by Government Departments, then new Ministries must not be established. These Ministries, however, are undoubtedly vital to the carrying on of our business, and large staffs will remain a permanent part of our future Government. If the Government of this country take a more active part—as it is called upon to do every day—in the life of the nation, and if greater speed is required from Government Departments, then it follows naturally that larger staffs will be required in future to deal with all these multifarious matters. There is no question with which I have had to deal that has been more complex or given rise to more difficulties than this question of accommodation. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have been urging my colleagues to the best of my ability to assist me in dealing with the problem of returning premises to their owners. A great deal has been done in that direction, and a great deal more will very shortly show itself. One of the difficulties that you find is that when you have housed people, say, at the Alexandra Palace, protests are made that the Palace was not designed for offices, and, of course, is not such a nice place as the Hotel Metro-pole, the Grand Hotel, or the Constitutional Club. These are some of the difficulties with which you are faced. With regard to the Tate Gallery, the hon. Member asked me to do two contradictory things. He asked me to clear the Tate Gallery by transferring the staff to Burton Court, but if I clear Burton Court I cannot clear the Tate Gallery at all. Burton Court was never commandeered. It was offered by the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners to my Office in December, 1916. A long correspondence followed. As a matter of fact, the ground at Burton Court was let by the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners to the Brigade of Guards, for football. They were getting a rent for it, and they have received that rent from the Government ever since. The negotiations were somewhat protracted, and at
one time a stipulation was endeavoured to be put into the agreement in favour of the Brigade of Guards with a view to the evacuation of the place one year after the declaration of Peace. We have not yet reached that date.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give that undertaking again? If so, I shall be quite satisfied.

Sir A. MOND: No, I did not say I had given it. I wrote a letter at the time stating that it was impossible to give any pledge for the evacuation of the place within a specified period, and that could not sanction, for a moment, Government expenditure on a big scale such as would have been necessitated. If such a pledge had been given, of course I should have stopped the buildings that were being erected and put them on some other site. As a matter of fact, the demand was withdrawn and the buildings proceeded with. You, therefore, cannot pin me down to a pledge which was abandoned with the consent of all the parties concerned. Not merely has more money been spent at this place, but 32,000 awards weekly are being issued from the Pensions Office there, and if that work is interfered with the whole awards of our pensions system would be brought to a standstill. I am certain that not a single Member in this House wishes that to take place. The hon. Member asks, "Why do not we house these people at Acton?" But how could I find accommodation there for the staff of 5,000 belonging to the Pensions Issue Department. I have a scheme which has been passed by the Estimates Committee, and which I shall have to proceed with, involving an expenditure of something like £300,000, in order to house these 5,000 officials on the Issue Department. Now the hon. Gentleman invites me to spend another £300,000 or £400,000 in providing accommodation for the Awards Department, and to scrap, in consequence, the £150,000 which I have already spent on the site we are discussing. In fact, I am asked to spend £500,000 in all in order to house this temporary service.
The Minister of Pensions is now reorganising the service in order to see what accommodation will be required, and it would be irrational and recklessly extravagant, having got the organisation established at this place, and having spent so much money on it, if I were to agree to return to the Guards Brigade their
football ground in order to improve the aesthetic appearance of the building and to put up a. new structure at enormous expense which might not be required two years hence. I do not think that, in the state of our national finances, I could go in for any such shocking extravagance. Remember that Burton Court never was an open space to which the public had any right of access. Still I feel sure, much as I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, that if he will exercise reasonable patience and let us see how the whole scheme of the Pensions Ministry which is now being decentralised works out, that in another nine months, I may be able to make a reply of quite a different character to that I am now giving him. I cannot pledge myself or the Minister of Pensions to the exact year on a matter of this magnitude. We cannot at one moment preach economy and in the next be extravagant. That must be fundamentally understood. Every day I am being pressed to pull down temporary buildings in the parks. But it must be remembered that for every one I take down I have to put up another elsewhere, and with the present high cost of building, and with our present position financially, to be asked to take such a course for purely aesthetic reasons is neither logical nor reasonable.
We must bear in mind the taxation of the country. There is a snowball reduction of Government staffs going on. We have already achieved substantial success in the release of buildings, a success which could not have been achieved had it not been for the incessant tirelessness of my staff which is dealing with the housing of Government Departments, and is exercising endless trouble to sandwich in every bit of space sections of the staffs, with the result that they have been releasing building after building. Even today I have given instructions to speed up as far as possible the release of commandeered buildings, and I hope we shall succeed in making still greater progress in the next few months than we have hitherto been able to register. People talk about buildings being released twelve months after the Armistice. Twelve months is not a very long period to pull down establishments which it has taken five years of war to create. They cannot be scrapped at a moment's notice. They-must unwind themselves carefully. My Department has no reason to be ashamed of the record it has achieved in the pro-
gramme we have adopted of releasing hotels first, museums next and offices next. It is a practically sound programme, and in a little more time, and a little more good will on the part of those who have undoubtedly suffered during the War, I am sure we shall get back to a state of normality which will get rid of many present difficulties.

ST. PANCRAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Major BARNETT: The object of my intervention is to call attention to the action of the Board of Trade in refusing to allow the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce to be registered without the word "Limited" in its title. This may seem a very trivial matter to some people, but it involves an important question of principle. It is one of those apparently small things which cause a great deal of public annoyance and resentment. The facts are these: Last summer, a very representative meeting of St. Pancras traders decided to form the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce, an association not for profit and limited by guarantee. The usual practice in registering an association of this kind is to apply to the Board of Trade for leave to omit the word "Limited" from the title. Let it be realised that the word "limited" is perfectly futile in the title of such an institution as a chamber of commerce, because if the ordinary trader thought the chamber was formed for the purpose of making a profit as a limited company, he would riot join it. As I said, the usual practice is to apply to the Board of Trade for permission to leave out the word "limited." There are certain formalities to be observed. Names have to be sent in, together with a cheque to cover the fees of counsel, and if the report is that everything is in order, as it is in nine cases out of ten, the necessary leave is granted as a matter of course. In the case of the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce, although all the formalities were complied with, the leave was not granted, greatly to the astonishment of the representative body of traders who wished to form themselves into a Chamber of Commerce. They put themselves in communication with the Board of Trade to ascertain what was the reason why they were not allowed to do what they wanted, and they were told that St. Pancras was a part of London, which, I believe, is an incontrovertible fact. It was said there was
already a Chamber of Commerce in London and that there was no need for one in St. Pancras. It was rather suggested that they were encroaching upon the province of the London Chamber of Commerce. My constituents at once went to the London Chamber of Commerce, who wrote a strong letter in favour of the application being granted, showing that, far-from having any antipathy to the scheme, they would be delighted to have it carried out. Having failed to shake the Board of Trade, my constituents came to me, as the senior Member for St. Pancras, and I pus a question to the President of the Board of Trade in this House on the 3rd November. I asked him
Whether he is aware that a responsible body of traders in the Metropolitan borough of St. Pancras has intimated its desire to form a local chamber of commerce as an association not for profit and limited by guarantee, and that, the Board of Trade has declined to grant its licence for the registration of such an association as a company with limited liability without the addition of the word 'limited' to its name; and, if so. whether he will reconsider the granting of such licence, in view of the expressed wishes of this commercial and manufacturing centre and the distinctive character of the industries which a St. Pancras chamber of commerce would represent.
I would draw particular attention to my right hon. Friend's reply, which was as follows:
I am aware of the facts stated in the question of my him, and gallant Friend. The application for a licence to register the St. Pancras chamber of commerce without the word 'limited' received careful consideration, but it was decided that the objects of an association of this kind, which are confined to trade interests in a limited area, do net come within the provisions of Section 20 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. There is no objection to the association being registered as a company limited by guarantee with the addition of the word 'limited.' "—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 3rd November, 1919. col. 1157–1158, Vol. 120.]
It will be seen that the first point made against the application was that the area was limited. Well, most areas are limited. London itself is a limited area, and England is a limited area. I am told that our world is a very small affair at the best and has a very limited area. I am told that the solar system, of which it forms a very limited part, is itself miserably small in comparison with the inter-stellar spaces. Therefore, the words "a limited area" seem to be words and nothing more. I suggest to the House that if this area, with a population of 218,000, with a mayor and a corporation, an area which includes three Parliamentary Constituencies, and several
distinctive trades which are not followed anywhere else in the British Isles, had been fifty miles out of London my right hon. Friend would have granted the application as a matter of course, but, because we in the borough of St. Pancras happen to form part of that huge congeries of cities and boroughs which is called London, with its population of 7,000,000 and is very likely before, it is done, to be 70,000,000—because we happen to come into that we are not to be allowed to have a chamber of commerce of our own, although we want one. Therefore, the limited area criticism is a very little one. Then my right hon. Friend said that there was no objection to the association being registered as a company limited by guarantee, with the addition of the word "limited." Nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend that to insist upon the addition of the word "limited" to the title would damn the whole scheme. It would be absolutely hopeless to register this kind of association as a limited liability company and to run it as a chamber of commerce. It is not an association for profit, and it is not seeking to pay dividends. We are only asking my right hon. Friend to do what he has done in dozens of cases for other chambers of commerce. I know that the strong point he will endeavour to make against me is that there is no other borough chamber of commerce in London. There must be a start made somewhere. If we are enterprising enough to want one, I should not be surprised if my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. Thorne) and his borough will not want one next week. There never will be a precedent in this world for anything if we are met with the sort of criticisms my right hon. Friend brings forward.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I never brought that forward.

Major BARNETT: I certainly understood from the deputation which waited upon my right hon. Friend that that was one of the criticisms he made, but of course I accept his assurance. After an interval of six weeks, last Monday I put a question again to my right hon. Friend. I asked him:
Whether further representations have been made to him with reference to the application… and, if so, whether he will now reconsider his decision on the subject.
This was his answer:
The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative—
—that was there had been representations—
The multiplication of chambers of commerce for the purpose of representing commercial interests in limited areas would, in my opinion, weaken the representation of commercial interests as a whole, and I do not therefore think it desirable to grant a licence for the registration of the St. Pancras chamber of commerce with limited liability without the word 'limited.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1919, cols. 1 and 2.]
The representations which were made in the meantime were made on behalf of the Commercial Committee of the House of Commons which unanimously, by Resolution, expressed surprise and regret at the action of the Board of Trade in this matter and asked my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision. I understand that a deputation from that Committee waited upon my right hon. Friend, but were practically told that no more chambers of commerce were wanted because it meant too much work.

Sir A. GEDDES: No.

Major BARNETT: I believe that was the impression my right hon. Friend succeeded in making on the mind of the chairman of the deputation.

Sir A. GEDDES: No.

Major BARNETT: My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but something like this passed, that if you had more chambers of commerce it would mean more authorities to advise and that it would mean a great deal of worry and annoyance. That would be an argument in favour of doing away with trade altogether, and if we did that the Board of Trade would have no trouble or worry at all. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is not a matter of polities and that this sort of aloofness and Olympian superiority to the wishes of the commercial community are not desirable in the Board of Trade. After all, the Board of Trade was made for man and not man for the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend may be torn away from us. There is always the possibility of his vacating the sphere he at present adorns and going to another, which he would no doubt adorn equally. With one foot in Whitehall and one in Canada he bestrides the narrow world like a Colossus. It is very difficult to make one's constituents understand the meaning of this bureaucratic refusal to allow a
Chamber of Commerce to be formed in a great and important London borough. I do not see any reason why St. Pancras should not be allowed to have a Chamber of Commerce if it wants to have it. It is bureaucracy in excelsis that you should have this perfectly reasonable, modest request, put forward again and again by representative citizens, and refused simply sic volo sic jubeo. He thinks the area is too limited. He thinks the interests of trade will be better served by not having a chamber of commerce in limited areas, ignoring altogether that there are trades which do not exist in England outside St. Pancras. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some better reasons than the limited area for refusing this very small concession, and I am sure he will earn the gratitude not only of my constituents but of every one similarly placed who wants to form an association of this kind without being fettered by this ridiculous limit.

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS: MR. JUSTICE SANKEY'S JUDGMENT.

9.0 P.M.

Captain W. BENN: I rise to call attention to the decision given yesterday by Mr. Justice Sankey in the Courts. It was that the action of the Board of Trade in restricting imports under Section 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, was illegal. If he should seek to say the question cannot be discussed because it is sub judice, the law of the land at present is that imports can be freely made, and it would surely be a very strange inversion of the proprieties of the case if the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had been committing illegal acts and been brought to book in the Courts should prove some reason why he should not defend his action in the Rouse of Commons. That can hardly be suggested WS a defence. What are these restrictions'? Section 43 of the Act was passed for the purpose of prohibiting absolutely the imports of arms, ammunition and other articles. The right hon. Gentleman taking advantage of the words "and other articles" has been issuing proclamations forbidding the traders of this country to import various articles. At one time the list was very extensive. The right hon. Gentleman went further and absolutely prohibited the importation of certain goods. For other goods he gave a limited licence. He went further than that and gave a licence to one man and declined to give one to another man
on grounds which were more or less clear. He cannot plead that his attention was not drawn to this matter before. It was, said months ago that the action of the Board of Trade was absolutely illegal. When we pointed that out the Government's reply was always that they were-acting on the advice of the Law Officers. We pressed them time after time. I myself have asked many questions, and the right lion. Gentleman has always-sheltered himself behind the opinion of the Law Officers and has persisted in his determined course of conduct. Now it has been left to some injured trader to-bring a case in the Courts and the Court has decided that the whole of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in issuing. these proclamations and in directing the Customs officers not to admit certain goods is illegal. 'That is to say, we are-back as far as this part of the administration is concerned as in some other parts, to the days of Ship Money and the Star Chamber, acts of the Executive done-absolutely in defiance of the Statute law as determined by Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman is to be cornplimented on a very brilliant Parliamentary coup at Question Time to-day. With a spontaneity which some of us rather suspected, an hon. and learned Gentleman asked who were the Law Officers who had advised the right hon. Gentleman in the course which he had been pursuing, and the right hon. Gentleman, I do not say with his eyes on any events which have taken place in the North of England, replied that the opinions on which they have acted were those of Sir John Simon and Lord Buck-master, whereupon there was a very hearty cheer, in the volume of which it was impossible any further to continue the controversy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is going to produce those opinions. We shall press him to do so. It is very strange if he is right, because the curious thing is that it was due to the action of Sir John Simon that a whole bevy of the right hon. Gentleman's proclamations took to flight. Tie had a very long and most varied list of things which were not permitted to be imported, and when Sir John Simon announced that he was going to import these in defiance of the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as that announcement was made public, the decision was hurriedly arrived at to withdraw the proclamations, so that if there was anything in the point all alt,
I should have said the disappearance of this most objectionable system of restriction of imports was more due to Sir John Simon than to any other man. However, if he says it was on Sir John Simon's opinion that he has been acting, then no doubt he can produce the opinion. If so, everybody will be satisfied, and, of course, I will withdraw any remarks I have made on the point. But I would point out that Sir John Simon, much to the regret of many of us, is not a Member of this House at present, and he is not a Law Officer of the Crown. Nor is Lord Buckmaster a Law Officer of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman has the advice of the present Law Officers of the Crown. Whatever the point may be worth it is not a point of substance that he could possibly rely in the action he takes as head of a great Department on the opinions expressed by Gentlemen who have not been Law Officers, at any rate, during the last three years, and it must be taken that he is relying upon the opinion of the present Law Officers of the Crown.
As the Courts have determined that the action of the right hon. Gentleman is illegal and that the traders of this country have a perfect right to import whatever they please, unless it has been forbidden by a Statute of this House—which, of course, is the proper way to do it—is it right that the right hon. Gentleman should hold over their heads the threat of pursuing the matter to appeal? What can be the purpose of appealing to a higher Court when it is the opinion of all legal authorities outside the Law Officers of the Crown —I can say this without fear of contradiction—that the right hon. Gentleman has no power under Section 43 to prohibit imports? It is safe to say that the whole Bar is against him, and he has nobody but his two Law Officers to rely upon. In these circumstances, is it justifiable for him, let me put it only on the ground of expense, to put the public to the expense of an appeal to a higher Court, and perhaps, again, to a still higher Court? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions may be when he is defeated in the next Court, about an appeal to the House of Lords. I argue the matter not only on the ground of expense, but on the ground of hindrance to trade. The great objection to all these restrictions has not been only that in themselves they are a very great nuisance to people who want to carry on their business. One of
the main objections to these restrictions has been that they introduce into business transactions that element of uncertainty which is the main enemy of the man who has to place contracts for a long time ahead. People have been unable to arrange to deliver goods at some future date because they did not know whether the Board of Trade was going to give them a permit or not.
With great courage and at great expense certain traders have carried their actions to the Court and have secured a decision against the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman instead of accepting the decision and saying, "Yes, we were wrong in the course we have taken, and you can have free imports," says, with a bounty which is not as generous as it seems, "We cannot prevent you importing; you can import what you like, but if you do import it, and if I can only secure a decision against you I shall make it retroactive and penalise you in that way." Why should the right hon. Gentleman put hindrances in the way of trade? My suggestion is that he should abandon the proposal to appeal against a decision which is patently right, and in any case if he does appeal, or if legislation is subsequently passed in the sense the Government desire, at any rate he should not make it retroactive. The trading community should have perfect liberty now to carry on their business without interference, being willing, as, of course, they are, to submit at any future date to any decision to which this House may come. That seems to be a perfect businesslike way to deal with the matter.
This is not a question of Free Trade or Protection. Protectionists are just as much opposed to this method 9.0 P. m. of interfering with the ordinary course of trade as the free trader. I put this purely on business grounds May I go a step further in regard to these orders? This is only one case in which the Government are straining the powers that were only given to them for use in the face of a foreign enemy. I refer to the administration under the Defence of the Realm Act. The Defence of the Realm Act, in its first Section, refers to the "continuance of the present War," and there is not the. least doubt that the powers that were entrusted to the Government were only entrusted to the Executive for the purpose of meeting the foreign foe during the continuance of the
War, We find, however, not only in the Board of Trade, but in other Departments of State, a determination to use these powers to the utmost, even though the sanction with which they were accompanied has itself entirely disappeared. I do not know whether I am right legally or not, but I say that any new order made under the Defence of the Realm Act since the date of the Armistice has no moral, and I very much doubt whether it has any legal, value whatever. There may be learned Gentlemen present, but I am expressing an opinion which is not without support among eminent legal authorities, and that is that the Defence of the Realm Act is governed by Section 1, which says "during the continuance of the present War." If those powers are used after the War has come to an end, the orders have no moral weight, and T doubt whether they have a legal value. We find the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers are using these war powers to the full, and, as has been shown in the case to which I have referred; they have been using them illegally. Customs officers round our ports have been exercising an illegal power in restraint of trade at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman, though he was repeatedly warned that his act was an illegal act.
I wonder how many others of these irksome restrictions which the right hon. Gentleman is placing on Britsh commerce are illegal Everybody who is in business knows quite well that business is suffocated with masses of licences, restrictions, permits, and forms inflicted upon British industry by the Board of Trade and its various departments. This is not only the case under the Defence of the Realm Act; it happens under other Statutes. This morning there was a most unintelligible rigmarole published about the export of coal. I do not know if anybody except a lawyer could possibly interpret what it meant, or how you were to go to work if you were so fortunate or so unfortunate as to secure an order for the export of coal. The trading community, after a struggle in the Courts, has discovered that one of the most objectionable activities of the Board of Trade is absolutely illegal, and it is very reasonable of them to ask themselves whether some of the other fetters which have been placed upon them are not also placed upon them in defiance of the law. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should make a return to the House of the various restrictions
which he is placing on the commerce and industry of the country, and in the second column of the Return should be placed the Section of the Statute on whose powers he relies for that executive Act. That is not an unreasonable request. Then the trading community of this country, which is not unimportant, and on whose activities the returning propsperity of the country must largely depend, will have some material from which to discover whether the illegalities of the Board of Trade are really confined to the exercise of the powers under this Section.

Sir A. GEDDES: I listened with steadily deepening amazement to some of the statements of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He seems to have been singularly unfortunate in what he heard at Question Time to-day. I can only ask him to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow to see what was the main answer that I gave. He talks about threats of retroactivity. Perhaps he will look for them tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In connection with the supplementary question which was asked, I do not think that he can have heard either the question or the answer.

Captain BENN: I did.

Sir A. GEDDES: It is very unfortunate, if he did, that he should have misunderstood it, or if he did not misunderstand it, it is something more puzzling still. The question asked by the hon. Member (Mr. Macquisten) was "Who were the Law Officers of the Crown at the time the first of these restrictions was imposed under Section 43?"

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has not finished the question.

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes.

Captain BENN: No; I hope that my memory is fresher than his. It was "Who were the Law Officers of the Crown responsible for getting us into this dreadful mess?"

Sir A. GEDDES: "Who were the Law Officers of the Crown at the time who were responsible?"

Mr. KILEY: Who took this action

Sir A. GEDDES: "Responsible for advising the Government on a matter of law at the time this action was taken?" The answer I gave—I carefully guarded myself, not having prepared an answer to
that particular question—was that I thought they were Lord Buckmaster and Sir John Simon. Since then I have had the records examined, and I find that my recollection was absolutely correct.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to lay before the House the opinion of Lord Buckmaster or Sir John Simon, justifying the action which has just been declared by the Courts to be illegal?

Sir A. GEDDES: Fortunately, I had no responsibility for the action of the Government in power at that time. Whether the Government consulted its Law Officers or not I do not know. Whether it proceeded according to the ordinary procedure, to get their legal opinion before taking such action, I do not know.

Captain BENN: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not know whether Lord Buckmaster or Sir John Simon ever authorised anything of the kind. That is the very reverse of what he said to-day.

Sir A. GEDDES: Of course, the Law Officers of the Government are responsible for the legal interpretations taken by the Government.

Captain BENN: The point is this: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence whatever to show that Lord Buckmaster or Sir John Simon advised action at all under Section 43; and, in the second place, will he lay the opinion of Lord Buckmaster or Sir John Simon justifying the course which has now been declared to be illegal?

Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that there were no Minutes of Cabinet meetings kept in those days, that the Cabinet as a whole was responsible, as it is now, and that the Law Officers of the Crown were responsible for the advice which they tendered.

Captain BENN: And the Prime Minister.

Sir A. GEDDES: And the Prime Minister, and Mr. Walter Runciman, and Mr. Herbert Samuel, and a large number of others, all of whom were responsible.

Dr. MURRAY: It was because of the tonnage.

Sir A. GEDDES: It is, indeed, a strange doctrine to expect me to produce the
records of a Cabinet which was in power long before I had anything to do with the Board of Trade.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has gone rather off the point which. was put at Question Time, which was, Was. the legal authority on which this action was based the opinion of Lord Buckmaster and Sir John Simon? And now he says-that all the members of the Government were equally responsible for the decisions of the Government. We all know that. The point is this: Has he got anything to show that the Law Officers of the Crown of that day, Lord Buckmaster and Sir John Simon, were consulted, and, if so, will he lay the opinion of the Law Officers? The opinion of the Law Officers was given in writing, as he knows perfectly well.

Sir A. GEDDES: No; the opinion of the Law Officers given to the Cabinet was not given in writing. The decisions of the Cabinet in those days were never recorded at all, and the answer remains which I gave in response to the supplementary question this afternoon, that the Law Officers responsible for advising the Government at the time were these two learned Gentlemen. I am quite prepared to believe that they gave their opinion in good faith.

Captain BENN: Gave their opinion?

Sir A. GEDDES: Expressed their opinion. I can only regret that there should have been such dislocation as to suggest that the suspicions of some of us—that in those days the Government was hopelessly disorganised—were correct.

Captain BENN: That is making a political point.

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, because a purely political point was taken. The fact remains perfectly clear that the Law Officers of the Government which took this action were these two Gentlemen. That was the point with which I started because the point had been raised, but not by me. The point has been raised just now by my hon. Friend, otherwise I would not have referred to it when I rose. He then proceeded to say one other thing—that because a large number of restrictions were imposed, and because Sir John Simon challenged those restrictions, they were removed. If he will look back to the records of this House, he will see that about March last it was announced that these restrictions which were being continued,
not being imposed, would be continued up to the let September. If he will look back to the OFFICIAL REPORT for last March he will find that statement there, and he will he able to trace in the Debates which took place on that occasion all the statements that were made about the continuance of these restrictions until the 1st day of September. That announcement was made in this House—I think he will find—on that occasion. I may be wrong, as I have not had an opportunity of looking up the Debate, but he will find it difficult to discover any expression by any Member at that time to the effect that these restrictions were illegal. Later on the point was raised.

Captain BENN: It was raised by me long before.

Sir A. GEDDES: My recollection may be quite wrong. I do not remember it on that occasion, but the hon. Member will realise that the restrictions which were in force up till yesterday referred only to the product of key industries, cocaine, opium, and a few things of that sort. These restrictions were maintained in pursuance of a definite policy which was announced in this House many months ago, and has been announced in speeches, not only by the present Prime Minister but by the former Prime Minister, about the need for maintaining essential industries which are called key industries. Reference has been made to the great restraint that the Board of Trade is imposing upon trade. The action of the Board of Trade for many months past, even before I had the honour to be at that office, has been entirely in the direction of getting rid of all restrictions that could be got rid of with safety to the. country. Those restrictions which fall now as the result of a legal decision, are restrictions which were imposed purely in the interest of the safety of the country.

Mr. KILEY: Lamp glasses?

Captain BENN: Babies' bottles?

Sir A. GEDDES: All the products of an industry may not be essential in waging war, but it is essential to have the skill and the plant which can turn out bottles required for war when war comes, and which can very usefully turn out other bottles during peace. It is essential to have such an industry in the country. Exactly the same thing can be said of every one of these key industries. When
the occasion comes, as I hope it will early next Session, the Government will be able to lay before the House a mass of evidence, which I believe the House will find conclusive, as to the vital nature of the industries whose products have been scheduled. I can assure the House that if the industries which produce these articles are allowed to go, as they would go without some artificial care for some time, if we have the misfortune to find ourselves once again drawn into a great war, we would find, as we did in 1914–15, that not to have these industries in the country would be a serious defect. One of these industries is the organic chemical industry, which produces all the aniline dyes. Anyone who has studied the matter at all must appreciate the fact that war is becoming more and more chemical in its mature, and that for waging chemical warfare a great, strong organic chemical industry is essential. Without that the country would be helpless in the new conditions that are arising.
It has been said that the Board of Trade regards itself as existing to control and regulate trade. If it had been said that there were irksome restrictions placed on trade during the War, if the hon. Member had recognised that the vast majority, almost the complete totality, of these irksome restrictions have been removed, and that there are still a few which have not been removed, I think he would have made a fairer criticism. I would ask the hon. Member, does he really imagine that at this time it is possible to remove all restrictions from the export of coal, and to throw the British coal market open to the world? If that were done, the price-of coal would rise to a level which it would be impossible for the ordinary wage earner to pay, even on his present basis of wages, high as that is in terms of money compared with his pre-war wage. If we had the coal required for industry in this country rising to the level at which world prices would stand, every one of our industries would be crippled and our exports would be hampered, and I do not think it would be going too far to say that it would bring ruin on the country. I do not believe that any person who has examined the question will take the responsibility for saying that at the present moment all restrictions should be removed from the export of coal. I have never met anyone who has studied the question who thought it possible, not even men vitally interested
in the export trade in coal. I have found in all of them a ready appreciation of the importance now of maintaining such a restriction. The hon. Gentleman speaks of placing irksome restrictions on trade. That. is hardly a fair way of expressing what the action is. We are in certain cases making exceptions to our general policy of removing all restrictions at once, and in those exceptional instances we are merely delaying the removal until such time as it is safe from the point of view of the trade of the country to take the restriction off. When the day comes to remove all these restrictions, there will be no one more pleased than the Board of Trade and the officials of that Department.
That day has not yet come; I am sure that no one will seriously argue that the day has come. I am also sure that no one seriously will argue that at this time, with the world in the state in which it is, with the League of Nations not yet a going concern, we can afford to allow industries upon which a war effort must be based, to be destroyed. It is only in connection with such considerations and such industries that there are any restrictions maintained, or that there is any desire on the part of the Government to retain any restrictions. I exclude for the moment from that generalisation, such restrictions as we desire to maintain on the importation of cocaine and opium. There different considerations arise, but none the less weighty. The hon. Member complained very much of the position the Government had taken up in regard to the decision of the Courts. By three successive Governments it was thought that this provision really gave the power which we have been exercising. From now on until some date in the future when there is new legislation, or if the appeal goes the other way, the restricted articles will come in. If there be any reason for restricting the importation of particular substances, surely it would be a very extraordinary thing for the Government to say, "You may make for the next few weeks, perhaps, contracts for forward deliveries of those articles, which may run for years."

Captain BENN: Supposing, as is almost certainly the case, that the Courts decide it is illegal, then does the right hon. Gentleman say that the legislation which the Government propose will impose penalties on people who made contracts before legislation was introduced?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am not speaking of imposing penalties. Unreasonable arrangements to defeat the interests of the country cannot be recognised. I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that it is only to safeguard the position and to protect the country against such contracts being entered into with the deliberate intention of making any legislation which might be passed inoperative for a long period, that I felt it to be my duty to utter the warning which I gave to-day. With regard to the point raised by the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce, it may seem very small to some Members of the House, but I have never thought it so, and I regard it as a very important one. involving a great question of principle. It is a question of principle which affects not only the development of chambers of commerce within the British Islands and the British Empire, but in all countries over the whole world. T really was rather sorry, not from a personal point of view, but from other reasons, for sonic of the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend. They are not helpful and cannot be helpful. It is no good saying that action of this sort is isolated. It is one act in a very long chain. It is no good saying that this sort of thing is a pure caprice. It is part of a policy which may be right or wrong, but it is a policy which is being followed consistently. That policy is this, that we all want to see the greatest possible development of British Chambers of Commerce throughout the whole world, and we all want to see those Chambers of Commerce related one to the other, so that they may form a kind of official structure, not a Government structure, created by the commercial people of the country, which will enable commercial opinion to be focussed finally in the Board of Trade. I would like to tell the House some of the difficulties of the Board of Trade in connection with this matter. We have some Chambers of Commerce in the country from which we get one opinion, and others from which we get directly opposite opinions, and we are left with a perfect chaos of opinions, and you cannot get the real business opinion of the country focussed. What we have asked the commercial community to try to do in their own interests, because there is no other interest in our eyes, is to so organise the Chambers of Commerce that they will provide a machine for focussing the business opinions, so that we may get the considered opinion of traders and a manufacturers as a whole. Here in this
isolated instance we come up against a case of this sort. We have the great London Chamber of Commerce. That is a body upon whose judgment and advice the Board of Trade has enormously to rely, and there are frequent consultations and intercommunications between the London Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trade. We get within the area which is covered by the London Chamber of Commerce a new chamber wishing to start. That is all to the good in the first instance if it is linked to the London Chamber of Commerce in such a way that the opinion of the St. Pancras Chamber can be connected through the London Chamber, so that it comes to the Board of Trade in that way. All we ask the Chambers of Commerce to do in their own interests, and not in any interests of the Board of Trade, is to so organise themselves that where there is a. big chamber like the London Chamber, the chambers forming themselves within the geographical area covered by that chamber, should form themselves as local habitations, you might say, of that chamber, and should link themselves with the greater chamber.

Major BARNETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman assent to the taking out of the word "limited," in case they are affiliated. That is a short question.

Sir A. GEDDES: A short answer would give a very wrong impression. We have had exactly the same question arising in Brazil. I would urge chambers of commerce here in London to arrange themselves so that when the commercial opinion of London is consulted or wants to impress something on the Government it comes to the Government through one channel for the whole of London. The alternative to that is this, that we should have, perhaps, twenty chambers in London.

Major BARNETT: Why not?

Sir A. GEDDES: There is no reason why not, as long as they are linked together in their own interests. If we have all these chambers in London unlinked and they all come to us with different expressions of opinion, far from getting the decisions made less bureaucratic, you will get decisions made more bureaucratic, because you will get different opinions expressed by the different chambers, and the Government Department will have to pick the information which it wants. I 'do not believe that that is sound. If I believed in having bureaucratic decisions
on these matters, which I do not, then surely it is obvious that I would welcome the greatest possible multiplication of chambers all independent of one another, because the bigger the number of chambers you have to consult the greater certainty there is that you would get one chamber playing itself off against the other, and in the end you would be able to do precisely what the Department wanted in the first place to do. I do not think that is sound, and I would urge my hon. Friend and the people of St. Pancras who are interested in this matter once again to consider this and to see whether they cannot bring themselves to realise that there is a rational point of view, and certainly not one that has got any inspiration from a desire to establish bureaucratic control over the British Chambers of Commerce, a point of view which suggests this, that the St. Pancras Chamber should see if it cannot work itself into relationship with the London Chamber, so that when other borough chambers are formed in London they can all have the same organisation, so that when it comes to expressing an opinion to the Government, as often happens, it may be expressed through one channel instead of through many.

Major BARNETT: Does he realise that this chamber of commerce will never be registered if he insists in the word "Limited" being in the title

Sir A. GEDDES: If it can be made a part of the London Chamber of Commerce, that is what we should like to see, for the reasons I have stated. There is a point in this that is of great importance to the commercial community. If this Chamber will form itself as part of the London Chamber, I am certain that along those lines we will get a better organisation of the British Chambers of Commerce of the world. The question arises in Brazil and in every one of the South American countries, where we have little British Chambers of Commerce forming themselves in all the towns, and we are giving them all this same advice. It is not any desire to interfere with the development of chambers of commerce, because I would repeat that we want to see the greatest possible development of this private official machinery of the commercial community, and I would appeal to my hon. Friend to consult with the St. Pancras traders and manufacturers to see whether they cannot find some way
of falling into this line of policy, or at least of considering it to see whether it does not appeal to them as a wise line.

ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).

Mr. W. THORNE: To-day is one of the days when hon. Members have an opportunity of flinging their spite sometimes against the various Ministers of the Crown, and I am not quite sure whether all the Members who have spoken to-day have got complete satisfaction. I hope I shall get a good deal more satisfaction over the point I am about to raise than have the hon. Members who have raised the last point. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould) at Question Time gave notice that later on he would raise the question of the allotment-holders in and around London. In the name of 15,000 allotment-holders who have got plots of land under the London County Council, the Office of Works, and the Epping Forest Commissioners, I am requested, with a number of other London Members, to raise this very important question. I am one of those who believe that the allotment-holders, not only in London, but in different parts of the country, have been treated in a very scurvy way, because they were urged during 1916 and 1917 to obtain plots of land throughout the country for the purpose of producing all kinds of foodstuffs, and -I think the greatest credit is due to these allotment-holders, both in London and the country, for the way in which they dug up rough-and-ready land— in some eases where it was said the land would not grow anything at all—and raised some very valuable vegetables, which, in my opinion, were a great salvation to the mass of the people during the time of food shortage. One would think that, in consequence of the good work done by these allotment holders, they would get more consideration than they are receiving at the present time. These 15,000 allotment holders in London feel very much alarmed, because in some cases they have got to quit the land at the end of December. There are 6,432 allotment holders under the London County Council who have got notice to quit at the end of this year, and there are 7,421 with notice to quit at the end of 1920. The Office of Works, I think, have decided to allow ten acres of land under their control to remain under cultivation till the end of 1921. The 2,000 allotment holders who have got allotments on Wanstead Flats, which come
under the control of the Epping Forest Commissioners, have also been given notice to quit at the end of December. I think I am justified in saying that my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture is very sympathetic, and that if they have got the power they have got the will to allow everyone of these allotment holders to retain the land until the end of 1921—

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—

Mr. THORNE (resuming): As I was going to say, there are 2.000 allotment holders on the Wanstead Flats who have been given notice to quit at the end of this year, and they are very much concerned. There have been a great number of meetings in different parts of the country. Last night. I understand, there was a mass meeting held at the Essex Hall, and I think it was decided at that meeting that a deputation should interview the Prime Minister, if possible, this morning. I myself and my hon. and learned Friend who sits for Upton (Sir E. Wild), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel C. Malone), and one or two other Members, formed part of the deputation which had an interview with the Epping Forest Commissioners, and we pleaded with them to allow the allotment-holders on the Wanstead Flats to be allowed to cultivate these allotments until the year 1921. We got a sympathetic hearing, but, unfortunately, I am led to understand that the Epping Forest Commissioners have refused to grant us any extension at all, and therefore it devolves upon the council I have had the honour to represent for the last twenty-nine years to serve notices upon a number of these allotment-holders. I am under the impression that the council, in their present frame of mind, will do nothing of the kind. What next step the Epping Forest Commissioners will take, of course, I am not in a position to say, but I do appeal to my lion. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture to use his good offices, and help us in every way possible, because I think these allotment-holders ought to receive a good deal more consideration than they have received up to the present time. It does seem a great pity that a large number of men who are willing to give their time to digging the ground, to growing all kinds of vegetables at
a time when there is a shortage, should be deprived of that right. It appeals to me from a health point of view, from a temperance point of view, and from many other points of view. If I. had my way, I would have every acre of land cultivated in some way or other. I think it is a scandal that we have so much land out of cultivation, and, therefore, I do make an earnest appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give a very sympathetic reply, and use all the power at his Command to protect these allotment-holders so far as London is concerned.

Sir E. WILD: I desire to enforce what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite with regard to this very important matter. This question of allotments is a matter of the gravest public concern, and it particularly con-terns us on the eve of Christmas to know that, unless sonic steps are taken by ale Board of Agriculture by Christmas time, or the week afterwards, a great number of men who are doing public service will be turned out of their allotments. The reason why this matter has to be brought up to-night is, first of all, because of its public importance, and, secondly, because the Board of Agriculture can exercise, I should think, some influence, and also because the opinion of the House of Commons may perhaps carry some weight with various institutions and Commissioners and so on w ho are in charge of this matter. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton (Lieutenant-Colonel Malone), are particularly interested in that portion of the subject which concerns the Wan-stead Flats, which consist of 380 acres of land, only 72 acres being under allotments. Although it is perfectly true that the main object of the Epping Forest Commissioners is to provide recreation for people, our contention is that there is plenty of opportunity for recreation on the margin of 380 acres. But the Board of Agriculture comes in at this point. We were in communication with the Epping Forest Commissioners, and when I say "we" I mean the Parliamentary Allotments Committee, because the House may be aware that a number of us joined the Parliamentary Allotments Committee with the object of helping the Government in increasing the cultivation of allotments, and in keeping these allotments under cultivation for a period of time. There is no question of keeping this
land for ever. Some people have expressed a fear lest if these allotment holders are allowed to continue in occupation the land may for ever pass away from purposes of recreation. The whole point on winch the Board of Agriculture is asked to exercise its influence—and I will say it has supported us very largely and generously in the action we have taken—is that the allotment - holders throughout the country should be allowed an extra two years—that is to say, to the end of 1921—before they are evicted from their tenancies. There seems to have been some misunderstanding, because. I received a letter from the City solicitor, dated 17th June, in the course of which he said:
The Chairman of the Epping Forest Committee has directed me to inform you that the Committee could not see their way, after careful consideration, to alter their previous decision. I am to point out to you that the Board of Agriculture have been furnished with the Committee's reasons for their action, and the Board have expressed their concurrence in those reasons.
No doubt that must be a statement of fact. I have not seen the letter which the Board of Agriculture seems to have written, but if the Board of Agriculture ever did write such a letter—and I have no doubt they may have—certainly that was before they were in possession of the full facts of the case, because since then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and others of us attended a deputation before the late President of the Board of Agriculture, Lord Ernle, and Lord Ernle expressed the warmest sympathy in the attitude we have taken up. Then several of us addressed questions in this House to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, and we have received the most favourable replies. In one reply which my hon. and gallant Friend gave he went as far as to say—let me quote his words:
That the Board think it is most regrettable—
That is the decision of the Board of Agriculture. I do not think you could have a stronger expression of Parliamentary. opinion than to say that "in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture "—and, after all, it is that Board of Agriculture that has the interests of allotment-holders at heart, and the interests of the food of the country at heart—in their opinion the action of this particular body of Commissioners was most regrettable.
Let me follow the history of the matter one step further. Having received that
reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, the Parliamentary Allotments Committee appointed a deputation to wait upon the Epping Forest Commissioners. I venture to think it was a compliment to that body that seven busy Members of Parliament went down and appeared before the Commissioners in order to urge the case of these allotment-holders. It is quite unnecessary to take time in arguing the case before this House, because I do not believe there is a Member who would net agree with us as to the desirability, in the interests of the country, of these men having another two years of their allotments. First of all, there is the argument that under the Cultivation of Lands Order, which they believe applied to them—although legally it did not—they were promised a further two years. I quite agree that if one had been a lawyer, and had read the Order about six times, one might realise it did not apply to land unless that land had been compulsorily acquired. These men, happily, are not lawyers—they are practical men. They did not realise the fact, and were delighted to turn to that Order under the belief that they had another two years. There is need for the food, and reference has been made to this. There is also the fact that these demobilised soldiers have come back and found a little healthful recreation as well as some remuneration in cultivating these allotments.
10.0 P.M.
There is the further fact, that you cannot have a more profitable and healthy recreation than the recreation of our first father Adam in digging the ground, and having productive toil. All these arguments were put forward before these Commissioners. We, unfortunately, spoke to deaf ears. We were not alone, because the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary were good enough to take a course which showed that their sympathies were entirely with us in our allotment campaign. They sent Mr. Weaver, the Director-General of Land Settlement, to join our deputation. That was almost an unprecedented step. But it was an unprecedented situation. Mr. Weaver came forward and addressed the Commissioners. He pointed out that there were 1,700 allotments upon the Wanstead Flats, that each of these allotments fed five people, and, therefore, this was a proposition of feeding 8,500 people. He pointed out that the holders had had
their rough time, and that they bad got this land into cultivation now, and were coming into smoother times. All the reply to that we got was some caustic observation from a member who hail obviously made up his mind long before—that these people wanted something for nothing. Allotment-holders are not the only people in this country who want something for nothing—and sometimes get it. Then Mr. Weaver pointed out the difficulty of the food question, and of transport, and he said that the refusal of our prayer would enormously add to the Board's difficulties.
Could there be a case more cogently put, and could there be a case which more required consideration? The only result was that after a decent period of delay we received an intimation that our application had been turned down, and that the Commissioners unanimously adhered to their decision. The only argument put before us was to give us a schedule of cricket, pitches and football grounds, and to point out that in 1914, apparently, there were 128 cricket clubs and 178 football clubs there, while this year there were 66 and 136 respectively. The Commissioners seemed to think that that was an argument to show that this land was required for cricket and football. As a matter of fact, I should have thought— and I used to have a big interest in cricket and football —that when you have got 308 acres devoted to cricket and football and only 72 acres to productive purposes that surely for another two years cricketers, and footballers might stand by. There is this point: We have never—I speak for my hon. Friends of the deputation, and there is no association of party about this matter—although every member of the House realises that a constituent will write to him for any or no reason—we have none of us ever received an application from anybody or a grievance to the effect that these 72 acres have been taken away from the public when they might have been used for cricket and football ! The position taken up by the Commissioners was, "We have nothing to do with the allotment-holders, we have a contract with the town councils, we gave notice to the town councils, and they have got to give notice to the allotment-holders." I should be the last man on earth to advocate resistance to the law. I have a great respect for the law. But I notice that the Town Council of West Ham has not. At the last meeting they unanimously decided not to serve these notices.
There is a great danger of bloodshed. [A laugh.] I mean what I say. This is not a laughing matter. There is danger. No doubt these men would not go out without a struggle. I am not in any way advocating their doing that—I am only stating facts. When I told the Commissioners this they said, "You are threatening us." I told them I was only stating the fact. You would not only have these 1,700 men. There are others from other parts on their ground. I ask my lion. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to endorse what I am saying—I am sure he will —that there ought to be a strong expression in Parliament; that Parliament is really the safety valve of the nation. I believe there is a unanimous feeling in this House. We all feel that every pressure that can be brought to bear should be brought to bear in favour of the men who came forward when the public wanted them, when they were prayed for, and who are now being driven out of their allotments without consideration. I hope and trust that after this public debate these Commissioners will reconsider their attitude, because, after all, there is still some force in public opinion.

Mr. ACLAND: Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether I could speak on foreign affairs, and—quite rightly—you said "No." That being so, I do not propose to use the present occasion to attempt to work in a speech on foreign affairs when dealing with allotments. But there is a connection. For if the Debate on foreign affairs has left any impression on our minds at all it is as to the extremely precarious and dangerous state and prospect of Europe. The chief danger before Europe at the present time and for months—it may be years—to come is famine. Famine is a chief cause of revolution and chaos, and that once you got a nation into such a situation as Russia, in the direction of revolution and chaos, it was almost impossible to get it back again. That is one of the things that the House and this country ought to have in mind—and ever in mind—in its keenness and anxiety to develop this movement for cultivation by allotment-holders. We have not anything like got over the difficulties in regard to the food supply. If we are to have any chance of peace in Europe, any chance of avoiding ever-succeeding revolutions for years, we shall have to keep Europe, at any rate, decently fed. That means we ourselves cannot neglect any chance of getting all the cultivation and
production that can possibly be procured. Somehow instinctively this country realises that. As those interested in this movement know, it is since the War that this allotment movement has gone ahead. I happen to be the chairman of the Agricultural Allotments Association, which represents 150,000 allotment-holders, and that movement has been spreading steadily since the War. 'The people have been more keen in taking up land, and although I am a member normally in opposition, I say that the action of the Government has been most helpful. The Bill passed this year for the acquisition and tenure of land for allotments has given great encouragement. The Epping Forest Commissioners absolutely ignored that great national movement which is going to make a real difference to our food supply, and even to the peace of Europe in the years to come. I think it would be ten thousand pities if there grew up in the East End of London a feeling that these Commissioners, being a body under no sort of popular election or control, had really made a very big mistake and an agitation was started to have them brought under popular control and influence.
I would be the last person to want that to happen at all, but surely it is necessary if a body like this is to be left in undisputed control in matters of this kind they should put themselves in the main stream. The Government and the nation's policy runs more in the nature of encouraging food production by these small men than by handing back the land immediately after the War. We cannot afford to give all our time to amusing ourselves, and the cultivation of allotments is one of the finest occupations for leisure time. Allotments are useful to produce food, and we cannot allow an utterly unrepresentative body to put themselves dead against the national tendency which is so vital to the nation at this time. All over the country this movement is going strong. The Board of Agriculture is helping it, and I join in the appeal which has been made by hon. Members who represent the district concerned. Can the hon. Member who represents the Board of Agriculture not get the Prime Minister, who is really interested in these things, to use his personal influence with those gentlemen in order to get even one year's more tenure for them on their land? This would give them the chance of one more decent
crop. The land in this district is about the most unsympathetic to tackle that anyone could find within 50 miles. The men have had an awful struggle with it, and it would be a great public advantage if they had one more chance of getting a good crop.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I want to add my voice to the appeal that has been made on this question. After the clear and comprehensive statement which has been made, not many more arguments need be put before the House. In the district which I represent there are something like 2,000 allotment-holders, and I would like to remind the representative of the Board of Agriculture of the expenditure which these allotments have entailed. The sum of £3 per head has been spent on them. As there are 2,000 allotment-holders, that means that between £5,000 and £6,000 has been expended, and that is a considerable sum in the. East End of London, and a substantial contribution to the food supply. When the Commissioners received the deputation which has been referred to, the arguments used for discontinuing the allotments were not very convincing. The Commissioners asked, "Have your local bodies searched the district to find other suitable land for allotments?" Anybody who knows the East End of London knows that there are no spare fields in that part, and it is ridiculous to make such a suggestion, because there is no land available even for housing schemes, much less for allotments. I have not discovered any party in my district opposed to this allotment scheme. In order to test this matter my colleague the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould) and myself attended a town's meeting in our constituency, and there was not a single opponent or dissentient at that meeting, which included representatives of schools, football and cricket clubs, and many other organisations which we were informed by the Commissioners are clamouring for the restoration of this land. I have made every endeavour to find out this opposition, and I have failed; and I do not believe it exists.
Another argument is that 16,000 of our constituents have signed a memorial to the Prime Minister in favour of the retention of these allotments. There has been no opposition memorial signed or attempted. I think I am entitled to say on behalf of
the allotment-holders that there is no intention whatsoever of asking for a further extension of the time beyond two years. There has been a great deal said about making the allotments permanent, and that that may have been a factor which has frightened the Epping Forest Commissioners. But so far as our people are concerned there is no such intention, and if a decision is given that they should have a further period of two years from 31st December, 1919, I think that decision will be maintained. When I rose 1 promised not to refer to foreign affairs, but this matter is very closely connected with the food problem. We had appeals from every part of the House to-day concerning the food question in Eastern Europe, and we heard, I regret, from the Prime Minister, that lie had no solution to offer about Russia. That is all the more reason why we should maintain the food supplies in our own country. The whole of Eastern Russia is confronted with starvation and privation, and I add my appeal to those who have spoken already. I hope my hon. Friend will declare strongly the opinion of the Government on this question.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) complained that some of the Members who had raised questions in Debate to-night had not got complete satisfaction from the Government, and lie said he hoped that the Board of Agriculture would give him complete satisfaction on this question. Complete satisfaction is a very difficult thing to give, and I am afraid that I cannot promise it in this case, but, with the general proposition that he has brought forward, I desire to maintain these men on the allotments as long as possible. We are entirely in sympathy with what he and other Members have said, and we shall use—indeed, we have been using—all our influence to compass that object. We realise what a splendid movement this allotment movement was during the War. We appealed to the people of the country generally to cultivate allotments, principally for the purpose of increasing the food supply. Our appeal met with a splendid response. We think, from every point of view, that the allotment movement is a thing to be encouraged, and we do not wish to regard it merely as a war emergency matter; we wish to see it carried on for several reasons. In the
first place, having appealed to these people to provide allotments, we think it only right that they should have, so to speak, a fair run for their money. Some places have been mentioned to-night 'where men have undertaken to cultivate land that was by no means inviting or suitable, and they have spent a lot of time, money, and labour on it. They should, at all events, have an opportunity of getting a fair return. I entirely agree with what various speakers have said, particularly by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Acland) and by the hon. Member for Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone) as to the necesity, in view of the international situation, of maintaining the food supply to the utmost extent possible. Further, we support allotments because we think that they do a great deal in the direction of breaking down the barriers which exist in some places betwen what I may call country and town life, introducing to the large urban population an interest in country pursuits and cultivation. That is eminently desirable.
The points that have been raised have really great difficulties. Let me point out the manner in which we obtained this large increase in allotments. It was done in three different ways. In the first place, a large number of additional allotments were obtained by voluntary agreements between owners of land and individual allotment-holders or allotment societies. Those voluntary agreements were principally for the period of the fighting, and in many cases the land but for the War would have been required for other purposes. The agreements were voluntary, and the Board have no power to interfere, but I can tell the House of any number of cases where private owners have been anxious at very short notice to resume occupation, but where we have used our good offices and persuaded them to allow the holders to remain for a considerable time longer. We shall continue to do that whenever a case of that sort is brought to our notice. Secondly, a large number of allotments were obtained under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, whereby we acquired land compulsorily. In those cases, we stated publicly that the land would be retained for at least two years after the conclusion of the War. That promise of two years. really only applied to that particular land which we acquired compulsorily; obviously it could not apply to land that was obtained voluntarily. In those cases where the land was acquired compulsorily for allotment pur
poses under the Defence of the Realm Act we have arranged—with two exceptions—that the land shall be retained for at least two years, and it. may possibly be three years, except where the land is immediately wanted for building purposes—and it is quite obvious that in these days of house shortage we cannot block housing schemes of corporations on account of the existence of allotments, or unless the compensation that we have to pay for the retention of the land exceeds very greatly the value of the produce from the land. On those conditions we have arranged that the land shall be retained for two years or more.
There is a third way in which land was obtained for allotments, and this is the most difficult point which has been under discussion to-night. Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations public authorities that were in possession of public parks or open spaces dedicated to the public—in many cases for the use of the public for recreation, sports, and games—were enabled during the War to use some of the land for allotment purposes, and that very useful power was largely availed of, and the London parks were to some extent devoted to allotments, as were Wanstead Flats. and other great open spaces. When the War was over the question immediately arose as to what was to happen in these cases. These open spaces were dedicated to the whole of the public, and there was no real reason why they should be monopolised by allotment-holders who are really a small minority of the public. Most of the public authorities, therefore, gave notice that they would terminate the occupation by the allotment holders as from the end of this year. That raised a storm, especially in London. A very large number of allotment-holders were to be dispossessed on the 31st December, and that was felt to be a great injustice. On the other hand, public authorities said they had no right to use land which was meant for the general public for a small minority. What happened? Three bodies were really concerned—the Office of Works, the London County Conned, and the Epping Forest Commissioners, the last-named in respect of Wanstead Flats.
The Office of Works were the first to give notice for the termination of the occupation of the allotments. That was felt to be unfortunate. The Board therefore made representations, and were fairly met by the First Commissiner, the decision being that 70 per cent. of the
plot-holders in the parks and open spaces under the control of the Office of Works should remain until the 28th February, 1921. In the remaining 30 per cent. of cases which were principally round Primrose. Hill and Bushy Park they will have to clear out as from the end of February next, and we did not see our way to question that decision of the Office of Works, because we believed that in those cases where the allotment-holders had received notice to quit there really was a strong demand for public recreation. Inasmuch as the Office of Works had met us to some extent we let the matter rest. Then we come to the London County Council which first decided that the allotments in the London parks should be vacated on the 31st December. There again we intervened. The council referred the matter back to its Parks Committee with the result that that body recommended, and the London County Council agreed, that 56 per cent. of the allotment holders should be allowed to remain until the 31st December, 1920. In other cases they say there is a bonâ fide need for public recreation. The London County Council is a popularly elected body; it is the authority for the whole of London and I do not see how the Board of Agriculture can further interfere with the discretion of the London County Council. I come to the third case. The Epping Forest Commissioners are the owners of this large tract of land—

Mr. W. THORNE: They are not the Owners.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The City Corporation are the owners and the Commissioners are the managers of this large tract of land at Wanstead Flats, where there has been a large number of allotments. The City Corporation, acting through the Epping Forest Commissioners decided that all these allotments were to be terminated at the end of this year. I had not before heard of the letter mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Wild), in which it is stated that the Board concurred in that decision, but, of course, it may be so. I am not questioning the statement that some such assent might have been given.

Sir E. WILD: It was in July.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If so, personally I was quite unaware of it. I will have the matter inquired into. All I can say is
that, if it is so, we were at that time not aware of the circumstances. At all events, ever since we became aware of the circumstances we have taken the strongest possible steps to induce the Epping Forest Commissioners to alter their decision. We have pointed out to them that, even granted that Wanstead Flats are an open space dedicated to the general use of the public, there is any amount of room there both for recreation and for allotments, and, in our opinion, inasmuch as both the London County Council and the Office of Works have made large concessions to the allotment holders, we think that they would be very well advised to do the same thing. As my hon. and learned Friend stated, our Director of Lands accompanied the deputation of the Parliamentary Allotment Committee to the Epping Forest Commissioners and stated the case as strongly as possible. I may say that for some time the Epping Forest commissioners refused to receive a deputation. We urged them to receive a deputation and finally they did so. I am sorry to say that they came to the decision that they could not alter what they had previously settled, and the allotment-holders are under notice to vacate at the end of this month. I have said before in this House that I regarded their action as most regrettable from every point of view. In saying that again I am expressing not only my personal and private opinion, but the opinion of the President of the Board and of the Board as a whole. We certainly think that in every way the Epping Forest Commissioners, having regard to the circumstances, to the necessity of maintaining the allotments, to the strong feeling that exists in the East End, to the necessity for food supplies, and to the examples set by the other authorities, have been certainly unwise in refusing to alter the decision to which they previously came.
When I am asked whether I can give complete satisfaction, all I can say is that I have no power to compel this body to change their decision. We have no power to control their discretion under their Defence of the Realm powers. They take their stand upon their strict legal rights. They say, "We are the administrators of this property for the general public, and there is now no necessity to give any of this land for allotments." My hon. Friend asked, if we could do nothing else, would we appeal to the Prime Minister to see if he could succeed, as he so often does, where others have failed. I will consider
that suggestion and see whether any steps in that direction can be taken. In the meantime, I can only say that I entirely sympathise with the feeling that has been expressed by my hon. Friends. Although we really are powerless as regards Wanstead Flats, we fully recognise the importance of maintaining this allotment movement, and wherever we possibly can, in the national interest, we shall endeavour to see that the plot-holders are not unduly disturbed.

ISLAND OF LEWIS.

Dr. MURRAY: I wish to raise a matter that concerns the third largest island in the United Kingdom. My complaint's that the communication between the Island of Lewis and the mainland has been cut down, owing to the action of the Treasury, to one half of what it has been during the last thirty years. It is difficult for people who live upon the mainland and under the fine social conditions in which you live in. London to understand what that means to a population 30,000 living on an island 70 miles away from the railway terminus. This is not a mere matter of inconvenience to the people in those parts, but a matter of life and death. It affects their trade, industry, commerce and social life generally, and their food supply. Even thirty years ago, when the population was much less than it is to-day, their commerce and industry was one fourth, the passenger traffic was only one-sixth and the postal traffic probably about one-tenth, it was found necessary by the Government of that day to institute a daily service between the island and the mainland. The island during that period was such that even before the War, although there was a steamer service from Liverpool and Aberdeen by which supplies, food and other necessaries of life were carried, it has been stopped by the War, consequently the pressure put upon the little mail boat was very greatly increased. In spite of that the service has now been reduced from six to three days a week through the action of the Treasury. The Secretary for Scotland, who knows the conditions and requirements of those parts, with the best intention in tie world appointed a Committee some time ago, in pursuance of the policy of reconstruction initiated by the Prime Minister, to inquire into the transport of these ports. This Committee drew up an excellent Report which said,
We feel that the Lewis people have a very distinct grievance in respect of the great physical inconvenience they suffer at the present time owing to inadequate transport accommodation.
That was when there was a mail service six times a week. The Committee made several recommendations. They recommended an improved mail service and a, larger steamer; also coastal traffic along the whole coast of these islands. While this was being dangled before the expectant eyes of the people the Treasury comes along and takes away half the. existing service. Their motto seems to-be: "Unto those that hath shall be given, and from those that hath not shall be taken away even that which they have." The people of the mainland who use the railways have been subsidised by the taxpayers to the extent of £100,000,000 a year. In addition the Minister of Transport came last week and asked for over £1,000,000 to compensate the railway users. who were compelled to use the coastal traffic in order to relieve the congestion on the railways. None of that money went to the West Coast of Scotland, where-the people are entirely dependent upon coastal traffic for their supplies to carry on their trade. It may be said that they use the railways. That is so, but the freight and passenger fares have been raised to such an extent that any benefit they get out of the railways is lost, because they have to pay through the nose-when they get on board the steamers. These people, who are dependent on coastal service, have not been treated fairly compared with the pampered people. who carry on their trade and commerce by railway. The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day talked about the cost of this West Coast mail service to the taxpayer. When we think of the enormous. subsidies which come upon the taxpayer, the £2,000 or £3,000 paid for this service should not be thought of. If Lewis had a subsidy per head of population in proportion to the subsidy given to the railway users here, we should have, not-£2,000, but about £60,000 a year. There need he no cost to the taxpayer for the service between Kyle and Stornoway, because the traffic in goods and passengers and the coastal traffic have so increased— not to speak of the 50 per cent. added-to the cost—that the service could be worked as an economic service if properly managed between the Government and the owners of the steamers. Therefore the statement that this service would be a
burden on the taxpayer is unfair. If the right hon. Gentleman looked into the matter he would find that the service which has been reduced by one-half pays its way. If it does not it ought to do, because it is a congested traffic in every sense of the word. Before the War a mail service six days a week was insufficient, as the Post Office told us over and over again and the Railway Transport Committee admitted. Many incidents could be given which cast a lurid light on the existing conditions. On New Year's Day we had the accident to the "Jolaire," when 200 sailors lost their lives on the threshold of their homes. They were on board the Admiralty boat because the ordinary steamboat could not carry them. Whenever there is any extra pressure the steamboat cannot stand it and therefore things break down. The passenger traffic there is part of the economic life of the island. Thousands of the people go about the country from fishing port to fishing port. A fortnight ago 200 women coming from Yarmouth were stranded at Kyle for two days and two nights without any food and with very little shelter simply because they did not know that the service was reduced. It constantly happens that people cannot go to or from the island because there is no room on the boat. The people of these islands have not deserved this. The people of the Is and of Lewis did as much in the War in proportion to the population as any other part of the United Kingdom. They now hear about reconstruction—that blessed word Mesopotamia is out of date—in common with every other part of the United Kingdom. Reconstruction then chequer said to-day that the fishing industry, to which the Treasury has dealt a mortal blow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to-day that the fishing industry of Lewis was not dependent on a daily service to the mainland. He knows nothing about it. I do not know where he got his information. I am acquainted with every detail of the fishing industry and other industries in that island, and they are essentially dependent upon an efficient daily service with the mainland. The food of the people is also involved. Many times last winter food was lost on these islands bemuse of the want of transport. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to-day that the people there could get plenty of work if they wanted it. Is it the policy of the Government to make the conditions
Such that the people cannot live on the island, and to compel them to go into the cities? That is what the Chancellor means; if they cannot get work there they can get it in the slums of Glasgow. The War has proved that it is necessary to keep a population of this kind on the soil. An essential condition of doing that is there should be facilities for the transport of fish, cattle, and sheep, and other foods to market, and a full service for passengers. I think it is a disgrace at this time, that in a big fishing industry of that sort a daily passenger service should not be provided. I hope I shall have a sympathetic and practical reply from the Government. I am sorry that there is not a representative of the Treasury present. The Treasury is the enemy.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I would congratulate my hon. Friend on the vigilance which he always displays about any matter which affects his Constituency. He need offer no apology for bringing forward this matter, the importance of which I, as a Highlander, recognise. I am rather doubtful whether I am. the proper Minister to reply. The Post Office is interested; in fact, it is upon the Post Office Vote that the cost of this steamer service rests. The Treasury is interested; the Ministry of Transport is interested. While that is so, having regard to the fact that I appointed the Transport Committee, J think I have a distinct interest in the matter, and I have a very considerable sympathy with the point of view which the hon. Member has expressed. The hon. Member put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is to that question that I desire to refer he referred in the first part of the question to the services which the Lewis men have rendered to their country. I do not think anyone can dispute that the War record of Lewis men and women is second to none -within the British Isles or outside. The hon. Member has said that quite a number of these men have come back from the War and have found themselves unable to devote their attention to the fishing industry in which they were formerly engaged, because of the absence of the steamer service. That, no doubt, is very regrettable, but my hon. Friend will probably agree that in other matters referring to industry within the Island of Lewis, thanks to Lord Leverhulme, there are many men employed to-day who would
not otherwise be employed in such matters. I am told that in the making of roads, in housing, and in other industries, ample occupation is provided to-day for every able-bodied man on the island. As it happens, I had an interview this morning with the engineer who represents Lord Leverhulme, and he told me that he was employing men in the construction of roads throughout the island at 1s. 2d. an hour, and that they could work as many hours as they chose on that particular task. So far as my information goes, there is ample work available for every able-bodied man on the island.

Dr. MURRAY: The point was that these men were not in a position to engage in the fishing industry. As to the number of men employed, the right hon. Gentleman may have later information, but it is not in acordance with my information, although I know Lord Leverhulme does employ a number of men.

Mr. MUNRO: The point I understood was that, owing to the absence of a steamer service, men were being driven from Lewis to seek occupation in the city of Glasgow. My answer to that is, according to the information I have, that there is no necessity for any man to go beyond the confines of the island as there is ample work for everyone. My hon. Friend said the steamer service was necessary for the carrying of fish to the mainland. As he knows, the winter fishing is approaching and during the next two or three months it will be in full swing. During that time there will be arrangements for the special carriage of the fish to the mainland. In that regard it is unimportant whether the steamer service is one on three days of the week or six days.

Dr. MURRAY: It is supplemental to the steamer.

Mr. MUNRO: The special carriage will carry all the fish which may be caught during those months, and whether the steamer service is on three days or six is absolutely immaterial from that point of view.

Dr. MURRAY: I do not admit that.

Mr. MUNRO: Whether my hon. Friend admits it or not that is my information. It is quite true there was a daily service before the War, and that the service was restricted solely on the ground of financial considerations. The point of view of the Treasury and the Government, is that they
do not feel justified in resuming that full service which would involve an additional burden on the taxpayer in the circumstances which exist to-day. My hon. Friend suggests a subsidy, but I thought subsidies were unpopular with the House at the present moment. Whether that be so or not it is the considered view of the Government that they would not be justified in saddling the taxpayer with the additional cost involved by the steamer service which he requires. He said to-day in a supplemental question, or suggested, that the extra cost of that service should be compensated by the extra revenue. I have had inquiries made and he may take it from me that that suggestion is without foundation. Under those circumstances, while I quite appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view, I am afraid I can hold out no hope in the immediate future that the. service will be increased to six days.
I should like to refer to one other matter which has been brought to my notice, and, of which I have received private notice from my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean). He has informed me that there has been a suggestion made in a certain part of his Constituency that land might be available for housing on the condition that the first claim on those houses should be open to ex-Service men. I understand from him that the suggestion met with some difficulty on the part of the Board of Health in acceding to that condition. t may say at once it seems to me to be generous and ample, and I shall take the earliest opportunity of conferring with the Board on this matter. So far as I can see there ought to be no difficulty whatever in acceding to the condition which, as I say, I think is, in the circumstances, most proper, and one which ought to be received with thanks.

BRITISH MISSION TO VATICAN.

Mr. LYNN: I desire to draw attention to the question of the British Mission to the Vatican, and in reference to the objection of an hon. Member to the Foreign Office being represented in this House by-an Under-Secretary, I would like to say that I think the Foreign Office is remarkably well represented in this House. I wish to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the fact that the -British Mission to the Vatican is in violation of the Act of Settlement, and, further, that it reverses the policy of this country that has been steadily pursued for 400 years. It may be said, in 'the words of the old
Latin saying, that laws are silent during wars, but I think we have got out of the War, and that it is time to get back to the law, and to see that the Act of Settlement, which has been a useful Act to this country, is carried out. Therefore, I would like some information with regard to the legal aspect of this question. Then there is the practical side of it. I put down a question to the Prime Minister, and lie informed me that the cost of this Mission had been £16,500. I want to know as a practical man what advantage we have got from that expenditure. This House and the country have a right to know what return we have got for our £16,500. As far as I can understand, the only thing we have had is some abortive Mission that was sent to Germany and that very nearly put us into an unfortunate and premature peace. But during the War, let us not mistake this fact, one of the most deadly enemies that Great Britain and the Allies had was the Vatican. It is quite easy to prove it, and I think, if the Prime Minister was here, he would have no hesitation in proving it, and if the records of the Foreign Office were laid bare to the public they would show that the Vatican was one of the most deadly enemies we had during the whole War.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Can you prove it?

Mr. LYNN: There is no necessity to prove it. It is well known. The Vatican condoned the sinking of the "Lusitama."

Mr. MacVEAGH: It did not.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. LYNN: It did, and the justification it gave for the sinking of the "Lusitania" was that the German children were not getting milk. It also used its influence in Ireland, in Australia, and in Quebec for the purpose of preventing Great Britain getting recruits. That, is an undeniable fact. We know it was the Vatican in Ireland that killed recruiting, in spite of the efforts made by Mr. Redmond. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] My hon. Friends can say nothing better than "Oh !" but "Oh" is not a reply to a statement of fact. I want to know what advantage we are getting from the Vatican now. If we have a Mission there, surely it is of sonic service to us, and I hope my hon. Friend will enlighten the House on this subject. We were told, when the Mission to the
Vatican was appointed by the late Government, that it was to be a temporary Mission, but is the Government going now to make it a permanent Mission? Surely, at any rate before it makes a permanent Mission, it should inform the country of the fact and take the views of the country on it. There are evidently some Members here who think we ought to have a Mission to the Vatican, but I think they are expressing their own views and not the views of their constituents. After all, this country is a Protestant country, and it has not suffered in the past by reason of the fact that it had not a Mission at the Vatican, and I do not think it would suffer in the future if the Mission were withdrawn. Therefore, I would ask for some information with regard to it.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I must pay a tribute to the burning conviction which, no doubt, inspired the speech of the hon. Member for Woodvale (Mr. Lynn). He told us that in attacking the Vatican no necessity for proof of any statement could exist.

Mr. LYNN: It does exist.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: At any rate he said it was not necessary and he showed that it was not a matter of evidence with him, but a matter simply of conscience. To me it is a matter of expediency. But I understand his feeling, and to a great extent I respect it. I happen to have served in France with the same brigade as a very eminent Irish Regiment. In the retreat from Mons they were very nearly surrounded, and the commanding officer told me that, to his astonishment, when they were about in the. worst position they had been in, one of his Ulstermen, who was simply beaming all over, said, "It's a fine day for Ireland"! "Well," said the commanding officer, "I am very glad you think so, but it occurs to me as if we are going to have a very hard fight to-day." The Ulsterman said, "It's a fine day for Ireland; I am just after hearing the Pope's dead." That is the sort of spirit which animates the opposition to the Mission to the Vatican. If you can do any evil to the Vatican, even though it is at your own expense, it is a meritorious act. It seems to me we have got quite enough difficulties in the International situation nowadays without creating any more of our own seeking, and I think the
War has shown us how absolutely essential it is that we should have our case properly put at the Vatican. What was the position at the beginning of the War? We had no representation at all, and France had no representation at all. Italy was not then a belligerent, and the German influence had the whole field to itself. Although Prussia is a Protestant State, there was a Prussian Minister, there was a Bavarian Minister, there was a Saxon Minister, and there was au Austrian Minister, and we had got absolutely no one to put the other side. We had no opportunity of presenting our case officially, and the enemy influence was absolutely omnipotent. Under those conditions it was no fault of the Vatican that their only channel as to the state of affairs in the Allied countries was through the Irish College at Rome, which is a notorious Sinn Fein body. You cannot avoid having some sort of relation with the Vatican, and all these matters were driven into non-official channels, which is most undesirable. If you have diplomacy at all it should be conducted through the Foreign Office, and under the responsibility of the Foreign Minister. After a few months of war the Government very wisely took the opportunity of congratulating the new Pope on his election by sending Sir Henry Howard to Rome. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Woodvale is right in saying the Vatican was anti-British and pro-German in any part of the War. Anyhow, if it was anti-British at the beginning of the War, that is an overwhelming argument. in favour of continuing the Mission, because after we had that Mission no reproach could be levelled at the Vatican for any breach of an entirely neutral position. On the contrary, they went out of their way on several occasions to do a good turn to our interests in various parts of the Empire. First of all, they undoubtedly discouraged the Sinn Fein movement. In reply to the interruption -of the hon. Member, if he came in contact with Roman Catholic Ireland, he would find that the older men are by no means in favour of Sinn Fein. It is the young firebrands, who are out of hand, who are in favour of Sinn Fein. I say it with perfect conviction that the Vatican took up an anti-Sinn Fein attitude, and discouraged, also, the Anti-Conscription movement in Ireland. Besides the direct assistance they gave us, they were very
helpful to many of the Allied nationals in tring to trace prisoners, and in other good works.
Apart from the War, we must remember that there is a very large Roman Catholic population in various parts of our Empire. In our Dominions, Quebec, and Australia, we have a Roman Catholic population that yields nothing in loyalty, even to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodvale. To my mind it is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of politics. The question is whether you prefer to allow the British case to go by default at Rome or have it fairly stated by an authorised representative. It would be more satisfactory, on the whole, that we should have a Protestant representative at Rome, so as to make it-quite clear that the Mission is a political and not a religious one. In that connection it is worth remembering that the Prussians always had a Protestant Minister at Rome.
The hon. Member for Woodvale really produced very little in the way of argument. He depended chiefly upon prejudice. I do not agree with that attitude. Even though I were to join in stating "to Hell with the Pope," I should see no reason to deprive him of diplomatic advice while he remains in Rome. In any ease, we have to recognse that the Pope is a very powerful influence, an influence working through unseen channels, an influence that will continue for a, very long time, and perhaps grows stronger in the reaction after the War. We cannot possibly afford, in a matter of this kind, under present conditions, to be swayed by sentiment. I hope that instead of satisfying my hon. Friend the Member for Woodvale the. Under-Secretary will assure us that, so far from withdrawing our representative from Rome, the Government will decide to make our Mission there permanent.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I desire, in the first place, to express my delight at the speech of the hon. Member for Woodvale, not because I agree with him, but because I am convinced that the more speeches of the kind from Ulster Unionists the better it will be for Irish Nationalists. The hon. Member is a novice in Parliamentary affairs. If he ever is as long in the House as I have been he will have learnt long before that bigotry and intolerance count for nothing here. That spirit is out of date altogether, and when the hon. Member tries to preach that doctrine here he is on hopeless ground. The hon. Member
takes every available opportunity to talk about the Pope. He thinks about him all day long, and dreams about him all night. I am delighted when he breaks into the Debate, because he lets us see that there are still men in the Ulster Unionist party whose only asset in politics is their religious bigotry. The Icon. Gentleman wants an assurance that this Mission to the Vatican will be discontinued. I do not care a brass button whether it is discontinued or not because it has never been used for the benefit of Ireland. It was established in English interests, and has always been used for English interests, and I do not care how rapidly it is removed. If I were an Englishman, I think I should be disposed to look at this question from a different angle. The Pope is the spiritual head of 275,000,000 human beings to-day, and this is more than half of the total Christian population of the world. And yet this voice from the Shankhill Road gets up and hurls insults at the head of these people. The next time you want to use the Pope for British purposes I am afraid you will appeal in vain. You said that we went to war to defend poor little Belgium, and to take vengeance for the violation of its neutrality, but you were not really doing that.
During the War you asked the Pope to receive a Mission from the British Government. You used the Pope during the War, but now the War is over, on the order of the Gentleman from Shankhill Road, the Mission is to be at an end. Throughout the War the Vatican was appealed to, and I could name half a dozen Protestant Members of this House who appealed to the Vatican, through the Archbishop of Westminster, to implore the Germans to give information as to the whereabouts of their missing relatives, and they traced them in this way. If the Gentleman from Shankhill Road had lost a relative, he would have gone to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or perhaps he would have gone to the Pope himself. Not only were most valuable services rendered in tracing missing relatives, but millions of pounds were spent and a fund was raised all over the world for the relief of distress occasioned by the War, and this was distributed without distinction of nationality or religion. Of course the hon. Gentleman opposite does not recognise that, and all he sees is that it cost £16,000. You went over as a Government to Ireland to arrest four men, and you brought gunboats,
and you arranged for the running of a barbed-wire fence round Wormwood Scrubs, and you put spikes on the roof to prevent them escaping—in fact, you spent nearly,16,000 on those prisoners, and the Gentleman from Shankhill Road does not say a word about it. The hon. Gentleman comes here and says that it is a horrible business to think of spending 16,000 on a Mission to the Pope. He will not sleep to-night; whatever you may say, he will still be unhappy; but what I, as a Nationalist, have to say is, remove the Mission if you like, and there will not be a word of complaint from any Irish Nationalist.

Sir J. D. REES: I could not let this subject drop without saying how desirable it seems to me that this country should be represented at so great a centre of Christianity as Rome. For my part, I would be glad if it were always represented; I am convinced it should be so represented. I rose, however, to ask the Under-Secretary if I rightly understood that for every £1 subscribed, let us say, by an Austrian towards the hospitals in Vienna the British taxpayer, say, the taxpayer in Nottingham, is to pay I No Member can sympathise more than I do with the people of Austria and of Vienna. It seems to me deplorable, sad, and really pitiable that this light-hearted, charming people should be reduced to the last straits of misery and starvation owing to Prussian intrigue. No one can sympathise with the Viennese more than I do, having had the advantage more than once of being in Vienna and of knowing the inhabitants there were always friendly to this country, and that it was only owing to Prussian intrigue and duress that they were ever forced into the position of being our enemies. At the same time, if one can sympathise, as I do from my very heart, with Vienna, he can sympathise even more with the taxpayers of, say, Nottingham that they should be required, when it is most. difficult to obtain sufficient. contributions to the hospitals of Nottingham, and when even Lord Knutsford is at, his wit's end to get money for the London hospitals, to subscribe £1 for every £1 voluntarily subscribed all over the world. I cannot understand, and I want to ask my hon. Friend to throw some light on this question. One day I came into the House and found that there was a provision for educating Serbian youths in London. Can anything be more remote
from the British taxpayer? Another day one finds across the way, in another place, an earnest movement for the retention of a camp costing some £3,500 per day for distressed Armenians. How in the name of wonder can the British taxpayer, with his pockets from which he pays his rates and taxes both empty, support these things? There was an English poet who said that he was "a philanthropist, a democrat, and an atheist." I have no concern to connect the atheist with the democrat, although the Bolshevists have given us ample reason to establish such a connection. As for the connection between the democrat and the philanthropist, it is democracy run mad to imagine that the British taxpayer or philanthropist is going to pay out of his own pocket for everybody. To continue to support hospitals in Vienna and camps for Armenians, to educate Serbians in London, and to send officers to Oxford and Cambridge to get an expensive education at public expense—surely that is an impossible thing to expect even from a man once rich and still the most generous taxpayer on the face of the earth. If my hon. Friend can throw any light on this matter and tell me I am wrong in supposing that the British taxpayer, who has to pay so much already out of his nearly empty pocket—staggering as he is under a most tremendous burden—is also to pay pound for pound subscribed for hospitals in Vienna I shall be only too glad.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I believe I can give the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J D. Rees), which I have no doubt the tinder-Secretary of State will bear out, that this pound per pound relates to money voluntarily subscribed in this country. Perhaps the hon. Member has seen the appeal signed on behalf of these unfortunate Viennese by, among others, three very gallant British generals —Lord Haig, Lord Home, and the Earl of Cavan. If the hon. Member had seen the sights in Vienna which our own soldiers sent there on Staff work have described, I think he would give the remainder of the money in his pocket which is already so heavily taxed. May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend beside me in deprecation of what, I think, was a most unseemly and uncalled-for attack on the Holy See by the hon. Member for Woodvale (Mr. Lynn). Unnecessary and in bad taste as it was it will give offence to Catholics in Australia and Canada and all over the world.

Mr. MOLES: You are a good judge of good taste.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Holy See has been of great service; he has kept the land of Christianity alight in Europe when it was nearly muffed out by the awful catastrophe of the War. I rose to make a comment on the speech of the Prime Minister in reference to Turkey. We all, I believe, wish to see the subject Christian races of Turkey and the subject Mahomedan races free from the tyrannical rule of the Turk, but I hope it will not mean that they will be placed under any other tyrannical rule. One voice should be raised in this House to cry halt to this anti-Turk wave which is sweeping, apparently, through Government circles in this country. After all, we are the greatest Mahomedan Empire in the world. Our rule in India has been almost founded on the loyalty of 70,000,000 of Mussulmans, but we must be careful that the Turks are left to govern their own people—people of their Own race in their own country—and that their holy places are not interfered with; also that the spiritual power of the Khalif is not in any way lessened. Our policy should be towards regaining the friendship of the Turk which we enjoyed in the past, which has been of such inestimable benefit, and which we may need in the future, The Turk has many fine qualities: he is a fine soldier, he had great belief in the past, and I hope will have in the future, in the word and honour of England. We may need all the friends in the East that we can get in the future. While wishing happiness and freedom to these subject races, I hope that a curb will be put on the ravenous appetites of certain predatory Powers in the Eastern Mediterranean, the jackals of Eastern Europe, who are seeking mandatory powers in order to exploit the country to the detriment of British trade and British merchants, and certainly to the betrayal of our good Mussulman friends.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. C. Harms-worth): The question of the Mission to the Vatican has already engaged the. attention of the House on two or three occasions this year. We have had it discussed in the Estimates Committee and on the floor of the House. On former occasions I have been obliged to say that the matter —which, after all, is one of very considerable importance, and one with regard to which opinions differ very widely—is under
consideration. I can say no more than that it is under consideration still, and that I hope it will be possible to make a definite statement in regard to the Mission at the time the House reassembles in February. I may be permitted, however, to make a few comments on the speeches that have been made on this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodvale (Mr. Lynn) is strongly under the impression that the mere existence of the Mission constitutes an illegality. I do not think we need be under any doubt that that matter would have been gone into most carefully by Sir Edward Grey when he made the first appointment to the Vatican, but since my hon. Friend gave me notice that he was going to raise this question I have had an opportunity of consulting high legal opinion at the Foreign Office, and I am assured that the establishment of the Mission is not in any respect contrary to any Article of the Act of Settlement, nor in any respect is it contrary to the Oath of the Sovereign at his Coronation. This may be taken as being as high a legal opinion as can be given on this subject. I think my hon. Friend will be satisfied with it.
It has been stated to-night and previously that the first. object of this Mission was to congratulate the present Pope on his accession to the Holy See. A further and, of course, a larger object was to place the Court of the Vatican in possession of the views of His Majesty's Government from time to time during the War. I have every reason to believe that the Mission has been very useful in that regard. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) has pointed to other respects in which this Mission has been of great service to this country. I do not know that we are called upon to estimate the value of diplomatic service by reference to a profit and loss account. Indeed, if that process were adopted in regard to every activity of the Foreign Office, or, indeed, of any Department of State, I am not sure you could get an exact record in figures. In my judgment, so far as I have had an opportunity of studying this matter—it has been called to my attention prominently on more than one occasion—and I am satisfied at least that this mission to the Vatican has been fully justified, not merely on the score of expense, which is, after all, a negligible factor in this connection, but on the score
of its service to this country. The Government has thought it right to consult the Government of the Dominions, Their replies have been received, and they will be very carefully considered in forming judgment, which I hope will be announced when the House re-assembles. The hon. Member (Mr. Lynn) cannot fail to have observed that every other Member of the House who has spoken on this subject has been a supporter of the Mission to the Vatican. That is sufficient evidence that this is not as simple a matter as it looks. The Government is well aware that in some parts of the country, and not only in the North of Ireland, strong feeling is entertained in regard to this Mission. Butt on the other hand, there is throughout the country, among many people whose opinion is of weight and value, feeling that the Mission ought to be retained.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will not think it discourteous if I do not feel justified in adding anything in regard to Turkey to what was said to-day by the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman (Sir J D. Rees) has referred to the situation in Austria. I somewhat regret that he should have raised the question in this form. A fund has been established under which the Government promised to give £1 for £1, up to a limit of £200,000. I do not think there is any limit of nationality or place of residence of the subscribers. I do not see why there should be any limit. I should like to think that there were wealthy Austrians who could contribute to the relief of their own country. This subject of relief in Austria is one which has very earnestly engaged the attention of the Foreign Office and the Government during the last few months. It is a subject which seems only to have been discovered within the last few days by some active and energetic spirits outside. Unless relief is found for Austria we shall be confronted with one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the world.

Sir J D. REES: Will £200,000 prevent that?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, it will not prevent it, but it would be a great contribution to the relief of this great difficulty. This is a problem that cannot be solved by such methods as these. It is only by a general reconstruction of Europe that you can hope satisfactorily to meet the needs of Austria; but the needs are so
urgent and pressing for the barest necessaries of life that I welcome heartily any effort that is made to meet them and I trust the hon. Gentleman will not do anything to discourage such efforts being made. Even the people of Nottingham would be quite willing to bear their pro rata share in this contribution to the needs of one of our former enemies. I can only hope that the public at large will contribute to this purpose with that boundless generosity that our people have always displayed in cases such as this.

PENSIONS.

Major TRYON: I desire shortly to call the attention of the House to the cases of sailors and soldiers who have been injured in peace time. I understand that a new Warrant will probably be in preparation dealing with injuries sustained in peace time, and I hope that the case of the men for whom I now plead will be considered. The War pensions of the present War have been made applicable to past wars, and the seriousness of the case of those who have been injured can be shown by a few illustrations. One man was injured and lost his leg by the explosion of a gun on a battleship, which is coming very near to war conditions so far as the injury is concerned. I have inquired also into the cases of three other men who were totally disabled by injuries sustained in naval or military training or exercise. There is also the case of a man who is a hopeless and helpless cripple owing to an accident while on duty. There is the case of another roan completely crippled during engineering training in peace time. These men, who are hopeless and permanent cripples, are at present only getting 17s. 6d. a week on which to live. I hope the Pensions Ministry, which has gone so fully into the cases I have brought forward, and answered letters about them so rapidly, will take up the general case, because it is a very urgent and very deserving one.

The Minister OF PENSIONS (Sir Laming' Worthington-Evans): These cases of peace-time injuries are not really within the present purview of the office I hold, but I am quite sure the House will sympathise with the view that some of these accidents are not very distinguishable from those occurring during the War. For example, there is the accident to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred of a
man who lost his leg by the bursting of a gun even in peace time. These cases are not covered by the present Warrant. They are covered by Army Warrants. I think it is the Army Warrant of 1914 which gives the compensation which is intended to deal with this class of case. That Warrant has not been reviewed under the circumstances of the present financial conditions and the present value of money. I have had before-me several of these cases, and I can only say now that they are having consideration, and at some time or another—shortly, I hope—it may be possible to make some-announcement that they will be dealt with: in a spirit which is more in consonance, with the present value of money.

Mr. G. THORNE: I had the responsibility of being a member of the Select Committee which dealt with Old Age Pensions. In that capacity I had brought-to my attention some very hard cases of pensioners, and I hope that to-morrow we shall hear of some improvement in regard to the rate of the pensions. There has just been brought to my attention a special notice in a post office stating that
Old age pensions due for payment on Boxing day cannot be paid before Monday 29th December, By Order.
This causes cruel inconvenience just at. Christmas-time, when every possible assistance should be rendered, and the postponement until the following Monday of the payments which are due on Boxing-Day will simply destroy the Christmas for many of these people. I submit that the Treasury should take immediate steps not to delay the payments, but to anticipate them so that they should be paid earlier in the week rather than postponed until the following on day. I trust that my hon. Friend may find it possible to meet the appeal which I now make.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): This is really a matter for the Post Office, and I have no authority to speak for them. I realise fully the point that has been raised, and I have every sympathy with it. The difficulty is this: The arrangements that had bees made have been upset by the unexpected granting of a Bank Holiday on Saturday. We therefore have three Bank Holidays running. One of two things must be done. The pension must either be anticipated or must be paid on the first working day. The first working day is Monday. I did point out to the Post-Office that if it was practicable to pay on
Christmas Eve we would stretch a point and it should be done. But we have no authority to anticipate. That is our difficulty. And while we felt that to meet an emergency of this kind we might perhaps risk sanctioning the payment forty-eight hours before it was due, we did not think that we could take upon ourselves to go any further than I have mentioned at such short notice. The Post Office said—and I must say that I have great sympathy with them in this—that if the work of paying pensions were thrown upon them on Christmas Eve, one of the busiest days in the year for them, the result would be disastrous. They simply could not handle the business that would come. That being so, after mature consideration on their part, they decided to postpone payment until Monday. Had it not been for this extra Bank Holiday the question would not have arisen, because the money could have been paid on Saturday. Unfortunately, we get this string of Bank Holidays, and the payment has to be deferred. I am afraid that there is no power by which we can sanction the payment of such a large amount of public money as would be involved at a prior date. I will bring the speech of my hon. Friend to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow, and will look into the matter once more to see whether there is any means of stretching a point further. I do not wish to say anything further tonight to hold out any hope. As my hon. Friend said, we must find if we have power to do this.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PROFITEERING (CONTINUANOE) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Mr. G. THORNE: This is only a continuance Bill. Am I right in understanding that during the course of this extension it is proposed to introduce an amending Bill on the lines referred to last evening?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the representative of the Board of Trade replies may I ask whether he can give us some explanation on a subject which is exercising the minds of many people, namely, whether steps are being taken under this Bill to deal with the sale of articles wholesale and also to deal with trusts and combines? I understand from Parliamentary answers that a number of eases are and have been for some time under investigation by the Board of Trade. I have not heard whether there has been a decision in any of these cases, any prosecutions, or any steps taken to deal with cases of wholesale profiteering, which some of us think are more conducive to high prices than any retail profiteering, taken in the aggregate. Further, is there any prospect under the Bill of dealing with the great modern evil of trade combines and trusts? If the hon. Member can give us any assurance that this evil is to be dealt with, it would be well received in the country and would allay quite justifiable suspicion and unrest.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I would say that a Central Committee has been formed and began its work on 30th September under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. That Committee divided itself into three sections. The duty of each of these sections was: (1) Investigation of prices; (2) Investigation of complaints (which refers only to complaints regarding wholesale sales); (3) Investigation as to trusts. Each of these sections has formed a number of sub-committees, thirty altogether, dealing either with particular articles or with groups of articles. With regard to, one or two cases the investigations are actually completed, I think, and the Report is now in the hands of the Board of Trade, and the other cases are advanced some way towards completion. I am afraid I cannot say more than that. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand that it is the intention not only of that Committee, but of the Board of Trade, to pursue these investigations to the fullest possible extent, both in regard to wholesale prices and in regard to the operation of trusts and combines. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thorne) was quite right in understanding that it is the intention of the Govern-
meat to introduce during the remaining three months by which this Bill will extend the Act; an Amending Bill to deal with certain facts which I mentioned last night, regarding the possible bringing within the scope of the Bill of certain articles now excluded, possibly strengthening the power of dealing with combines and trusts, and also power to publish the Reports where there is any doubt up to now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Application of Endowments of the Private or Lower Foundation for the purposes of the Royal or Upper Foundation.)

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the said endowments of the Private or Lower Foundation, and any other property applicable for the purposes of that foundation (including any income arising from those endowments or property after the passing of this Act, or which has arisen therefrom before the passing of this Act, and has not been applied for the benefit of the Private or Lower Foundation), shall, so far as not applied by direction of His Majesty for the benefit of any knights of the Private or Lower Foundation so long as there are any such knights, be applicable at such times, and in such manner, and subject to such provisions as to accumulation, or otherwise as His Majesty may direct for the benefit of the Royal or Upper Foundation.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MacVEAGH: I did not say anything about this Bill last night as the Secretary of State for War had not got his supper and was in a hurry to get home, and I allowed him to get the Second Reading without any discussion, because I took pity on him; but to pass the Committee stage also without a word of explanation is rather a tall order. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has brought in this Bill and especially this first Clause? I do not know whether he consulted the Law Officers before he did so. If he wants to vary a charitable foundation he should apply to the High Court for permission, and why is he defrauding the Law Officers out of the revenue they would get for making that application? I would also like to know why he proposes to abolish this foundation and devote the proceeds of the lower foundation to the
benefit of the upper foundation? Why does he not take the money from the upper and give it to the lower? So far as I can make out from the Memorandum, the Knights of the Lower Foundation are getting £55 per year and the Knights of the Upper Foundation £126 per year. I object above all as a lawyer to this Bill, because it outrages the will of a dead monarch and plays ducks and drakes with what was left for a particular object. The Secretary of State for War comes along like an up-to-date Cromwell and proposes to vary the will of Henry VIII. and to apply the money whatever way he thinks fit. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever read Henry the Eighth's will.

Captain TERRELL: He has.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I do not believe he has, and I doubt if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has read it. The residuary legatees, I am informed, under that will arc the very numerous progeny of Henry the Eighth's very numerous wives, I think we ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether any effort has been made to trace those numerous descendants of Henry VIII. before he appropriates the money which this very deserving and popular and esteemed monarch left for particular parties. There is another thing. I should like to know, and that is who are these thirteen gentlemen getting this, £126? Why are they getting it? As I understand they get free quarters in. Windsor Castle and get this money. Who, selects them? Is it the Secretary of State for War himself, or how is the thing done? I am afraid there are Members of this House who if they knew there were nice little jobs of this kind going, would be willing to prove themselves lineal descendants of Henry VIII. Who are these knights, and arc they real knights? I see there are Knights of the Upper Foundation and Knights of the Lower Foundation; how do, they get there, arid are the titles hereditary? I never heard of these worthy gentlemen before, and I do not think anybody in this House ever heard of them before, nor do I think the right hon. Gentleman himself ever heard of them before bringing in this Bill. I suppose, like his illustrious ancestor, who once asked what these "damned dots were about," he asked what these blessed military Knights of-Windsor were about, but I think, before we pass the first Clause, the Secretary of. State for War might tell us more about this mysterious class, and we ought to know whether there is any danger of the class
becoming extinct and the intention of the testator failing, therefor. I do not want to put the House to a Division at this hour, but if the right hon. Gentleman does not give us some information about these knights I think we shall have to divide the House.

12.0 M.

Major GREAME: Unfortunately the only copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT I have been able to obtain of last night's proceedings ended in the middle of a most eloquent speech by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher); it ended with asterisks, and I have searched in vain for any record of an explanation of this mysterious Bill given last night, when, I understand, it passed its Second Reading. One is always suspicious of a Bill which contains a whole page of Preamble containing apparent reasons why the Bill should be passed and only two Clauses of operation. I think the Committee is entitled to receive some explanation from my right hon. Friend as to what the Bill is about. I am not at all sure that my right hon. Friend is the proper person to be in charge of this Bill. There is a great deal of legal questions obviously concerned in it upon which one would wish to hear the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and, as far as I can sea from this very involved Preamble, a sum of money was left in the way which the hon. Gentleman opposite somewhat inaccurately described, but the general objects of the Trust appear to have been to build houses. I must say that one regards with extreme suspicion, at a time when the Government has be-en asked to find subsidies for houses, any attempt to divert a housing endowment to some other peculiar, and lay, and unsuitable purpose.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Send for Tudor Walters !

Major GREAME: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is making some mistake as between the period and the personality, but, in any case, I am quite sure that an adequate explanation will be given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. I am sorry to see that the Labour Benches are so sparsely occupied, although, as an hon. Friend reminds me, the Members of the somewhat more limited form of democracy are here in what I might call, at any rate, proportion-ate numbers. [At this point the Paymaster-General (Sir Tudor Walters)
entered the House.] Here is one of the representatives of the Ministry of Health who has arrived, and may I ask him whether he has read this Bill? May I ask him also whether he has been consulted as to whether the Ministry of Health consents to this -diversion of a housing endowment to purposes which are specified in Clause 2? The hon. Gentleman does not answer, and I can only suppose he is unacquainted with the Bill. I therefore propose to give him the opportunity of reading the Bill while I am concluding the remarks I am going to make, in order that we may know what the views of the Ministry of Health are on this measure. Why 1 regret that the Labour Benches are not represented is that I see that the fourth reason given in favour of this Bill in the Preamble is as follows: "Whereas it is expedient that the Private or Lower Foundation should cease to exist." That makes me suspicious. I do not know what the Private or Lower Foundation is. If the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more explanatory on the Second Reading, we might all be more aware of the lower foundation, but I am still at a loss to know whether it refers to this particular Order of Knights, or whether it refers to the foundation of the edifice for which the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Health is responsible. But if it means that the private or lower foundation is to cease to exist, it seems to me to be thoroughly undemocratic. I am the more suspicious as to what is intended because I see the Treasury Bench completely full, and I am led to suppose that it must be for some sinister purpose. No doubt the Leader of the House will enlighten us as to what there is behind it all, otherwise I cannot conceive why the Leader of the House is here at five minutes past 12. Indeed, I feel almost tempted to move to report Progress to give the Leader of the House an opportunity of explaining. This seems to me to be a thoroughly unsound measure. It seeks to divert to wholly secular purposes—if I may -put it so —an endowment which was intended for housing the people. It purposes to abolish a democratic foundation in these days when we are attempting to make the world safe for democracy. It seeks to suppress what one may call the smaller nationality. The House, before it proceeds to a consideration of this measure, is entitled to a far fuller explanation, not only from the Secretary for War—and I have heard that this matter was debated
at considerable length by the Army Council, and only by considerable pressure, corresponding to our Closure, was it agreed to by that august body—but from a representative of the Ministry.

Captain ELLIOT: Might I be allowed to support the very eloquent appeal for further information made by my hon. and gallant Friend? If the Treasury Bench mobilise they can vote down the rest of the House. I appeal to the Committee, as a whole, to stand up for ancient rights against the mobilised services of the Government, who have come from their private rooms, recesses, cellars, and caves of this House, have come down in their dozens, to carry, on a snap Division, a measure like this. It is rather a discreditable phase of Parliamentary history. It has been impossible for us in the smoke room to conduct our business because of the disquiet occasioned by Ministers returning here—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think those observations touch the merits of Clause 1.

Captain ELLIOT: I am pointing out that this is a sinister conspiracy on the part of the Treasury Bench against this Committee. All I wished to say was that I do not wish to have a statement from the Secretary for War. These things are not properly explained by him. But on his left is one of the diarchy, one of the right hon. Gentlemen who rule this House. I call for an explanation from the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Board of Trade. After all, nothing can be done in this country without the intervention or control of one or the other of the great twin brethren. We ought to have a real explanation, without any camouflage, by one of them. We came down to this House well-knowing that if this matter is pressed to a Division we shall be beaten by this mere mechanical majority. [HON MEMBERS "No, no 1"] An important measure like this ought not to be rushed through the House. We have been here lately late at night, and some fall asleep on the benches. This House has been discussing important matters all day, and is weary. We have listened to the eloquent speech of the Prime Minister. This measure only concerns the rights of a few private citizens, so far as we can judge; but they are Englishmen, and their rights ought to be considered. We have been talking about Czecho-Slovaks and Jugo-Slays, and we have had eloquent speeches from various people—

The CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain ELLIOT: I cannot give all my reasons at this late hour why the Clause should not stand part of the Bill—I want to get home to bed, the same as everybody else—but we have had no explanation. The Treasury Bench is becoming more and more packed—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is repeating both himself and the speakers who have preceded him, and that is contrary to Standing Order No. 19.

Captain ELLIOT: Then I will reserve my remarks on the general aspect of the Bill till the Third Reading, and content myself now with supporting the eloquent appeal of my hon. Friend, that this Clause should not stand part of the Bill without any further explanation.

Mr. WALLACE: It is because I consider this is a matter of urgent public importance that I venture to rise. It is most unfortunate that at the end of the Session an extremely important and complicated measure of this sort—

The CHAIRMAN: That has been said three times already, and Standing Order No. 19 comes into operation.

Mr. WALLACE: I am extremely sorry that my ignorance of the Rules of the House causes me to contravene your ruling. We have upon the Front Bench the Patronage Secretary, who, I understand, has a matter of this sort within his purview, and it seems to me an extraordinary procedure that he should decide that the lower foundation should be altogether abolished and that the upper foundation should take its place. It seems to me, in these days when we all believe in the general interests of democracy, extraordinary that a retrograde step of this kind should be taken. I am especially surprised that a Coalition Government, in which we all believe, and which is supposed to have the interests of democracy at heart, should take such a step. It is bound to react in the country in a way that the Coalition Government, I am sure, will not appreciate. As a matter of fact, I had never before heard of the Military Knights of Windsor, though I had heard of the "Merry Wives of Windsor," but I am always willing to add to my stock of knowledge, and I suggest, if we are to be properly informed about the provisions
and scope of this Bill, that there ought to be circulated a copy of the will of Henry VIII. We are asked to take these things for granted; none of us have the means of checking the statements made. I am extremely disappointed that one —ho has such a wide and democratic outlook as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War should make himself responsible at this late hour for a Bill of this nature, a Bill which I am sure, in a full House, would not appeal to hon. Members. I suggest that it is just one of those Bills that should be left over till next Session. I understand that there was a certain General Sir George Boles, under whose will these military knights benefit. and that a sum of £2,083 6s. 8d. has been invested at 2½ per cent. in Consolidated Stock. May I suggest that this sum, if the right hon. Gentleman has really got the interests of these military knights at heart, ought to be invested at a higher rate of interest. I am quite sure, if he realises the responsibility of his position, he will see that this sum is transferred to a stock which will produce a higher rate of interest.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On a point of Order. I wish to ask for a definition between the higher and the lower orders of these knights.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I deprecate undue levity in dealing with this topic. The subject is a very simple one, and a very ancient story, and it deserves to be treated with the greatest respect. The measure is one which is capable of being defended not only by reference to the past, but also to the strictest canons of democratic opinion at the present time. Under the will of King Henry VIII. certain very small sums charageable upon a particular manor in Norfolk were left to provide for the declining years of a small number of unemployed military gentlemen.

Mr. MacVEAGH: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is not an inflexible and invariable rule in this House that when a Minister quotes from a public document he must lay it upon the Table? The Secretary of State for War is now professing to quote the will of Henry VIII., and I submit that it ought to be laid upon the Table.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not attempting to give a textual quotation, but merely a general rendering of the sense and. purpose. Under the will of Henry VIII. a sum, which, with certain additions that: have been made from time to time, provides approximately £126 per year for thirteen retired military gentlemen, was set apart and was charged upon the revenues of a manor in Norfolk. This £126 was given in addition to free quarters in Windsor. That is the Upper or Royal Foundation of the Knights of Windsor. Under the will of Charles I., and subject to the augmentation of Sir George Boles, certain other funds were made available for five other retired military gentlemen who did not receive free quarters but who received £55 per year. There are, therefore, thirteen retired officers in indigent circumstances who under these ancient, wills and legacies receive £126 per year. and free quarters, and five who receive-£55 per year and no free quarters. We do not think that £55 a year is quite good enough for a knight.

Mr. MacVEAGH: There is not a word in the Bill about Charles I.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We do not think it is practicable to continue the upkeep of the Knights in the Lower Foundation on this basis of £55 a year. In passing, let me say it is not proposed to take anything away from the existing beneficiaries; it is suggested that they shall be allowed to die out, but as they pass away the Knights of the Lower Foundation will not be replaced. That is not a matter which really lies within the discretion of this House.; it is within the discretion of the Crown to extinguish the Lower Foundation in the ordinary way, but the Crown seeks from Parliament power to apply the five £55, a year saved by letting the Lower Foundation die out and to add the amounts to the emoluments of the thirteen Knights of the Upper Foundation, whose annual stipends will thereby be eventually raised to £147 instead of £126. I have heard some ignorant people say it is an undemocratic principle to wipe out the lower foundation. But I should like to see a point like that maintained on a Labour platform. We consider that the £55 a year knights are paid far below the economic level at which knights should be maintained; they are really sweated knights, and as such ought not to be encouraged. It would be far better to adopt the principle of the minimum wage—far better to collect such
revenues as they have and apply them to the benefit of a smaller number of persons to enable them to be maintained as well possible. How these have been affected by the absolute fall in the ordinary purchasing power of the sovereign is a very serious reflection, and it is obvious that, prices being as they are, a more sensible course cannot be taken than to allow the lower foundation to die out and apply such moneys as are available to sustaining in a better position the Knights of the Upper Foundation. I do trust that the Committee will give a cheerful, if curious, attention to this measure, and also offer a due measure of sympathy to what, after all, is a rather difficult though humble business.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am opposed entirely to the principle of the Bill. What is the use of giving a man £147 a year instead of 1,126; it is almost adding nothing to nothing. The truer policy would be to abolish the thirteen knights—that most unpropitious number—and add their salaries to those of the five. Suppose that gave them £360 a year; calculating the purchasing power of the sovereign at about 6s. 8d. in the £1, that would bring their income down to about £127, or pre-war purchasing power. It is far far better to have five well-fed knights than thirteen half-starved ones. I have a great deal more respect for the will of Charles I. than for that of Henry VIII. He was the more responsible monarch of the two; indeed, I was rather surprised Henry VIII. should have mentioned knights in his will. I should rather have expected him to make provision for dames. I think the Knights of the Higher Foundation should be allowed to die out, and their salaries handed over to the Knights of the Lower Foundation.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be better to establish an Industrial or Whitley Council for these poor sweated Knights of the Upper Foundation?

Captain R. TERRELL.: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." It is too late an hour to take this Bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be very undesirable, after we have had such an illuminating and variegated discussion as we have had this evening, not to proceed with this Bill. It is apparent from the
attitude of the Committee that it intends to legislate, and it ought not to allow the hon. and gallant Member's somewhat frivolously moved proposal to stand in its path. However late we shall have, to sit, I hope we shall not separate until we have settled the vexed question we have debated.

Mr. NEWBOULD: As we are likely to, have a Division, might I appeal to the Leader of the House to take off the Government Whips?

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2—(Saving for Existing Military Knights of the Private or Lower Foundation.)

Vacancies in the number of the five military knights of the Private or Lower Foundation shall not be filled up after the passing of this Act, but, notwithstanding anything in this Act, the persons who are at the time of the passing of this Act military knights of the Private or Lower Foundation shall be entitled fl all the benefits and privileges while they are military knights of that foundation which they enjoyed before the passing of this Act.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that no individual will suffer financially from the operation of this Clause?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. Every person who is at present a beneficiary will enjoy the benefits he now receives as long as he lives. It is only as the five knights individually die out in the ordinary course that the benefits will be transferred step by step to the other Foundation.

Major GREAME: We imagined that this Bill was a matter of urgency, but now we are told that its operation is necessarily going to wait until the death of these five gentlemen, hale, hearty, trained in military service, who are likely to live for many years—far longer than the present Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Short Title)ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment—[King's Consent Signified].

Orders of the Day — UNION OF BENEFICES BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Committee to consider of making further provision, out of moneys provided by Parliament, for Old Age Pensions—[King's Recommendation Signified]—To-morrow (Friday). —[Mr. Baldwin.]

The remaining Government Order was read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven minutes before One o'clock.